Yes, field guides have not been all that helpful to us.  In one case, we struggled with an informant’s description of a bird.  Finally I suspected that it had to be a Pygmy Owl, but when confronted with field guide illustrations, the informant was sure that it wasn’t the bird.  Finally, we found the bird in the field and it was indeed the owl.  So, we got it based on description, but couldn’t confirm it by a field guide illustration, only in the field. 

So, we spend as much time in the field as possible, supplemented with sit down sessions to record stories about birds and ask questions about what we’ve seen, etc.  Having informants flip through field guides was rather worthless.  I think this would probably be almost the same here in the U.S.  It takes training to be able to use a field guide and to “see” what they are supposed to be showing.  Most people just aren’t up to it right out of the box.

There’s also the problem of misidentifications.  In many cases the person may know a bird, but not identify it correctly in the field.  There may be many different ways to identify a bird, and they may not always add up to getting the right species.  Don’t know how many times I’ve had someone describe a bird, only to have them unable to pick it out in the field.  Or to give it the wrong name, even though I think they know the bird.  Of course, we birders make mistakes like that all the time as well.

Also, since so many birds are identified by sound in our area, we’re going to do more with sound recordings next time.  Should be interesting, though again, without context, we’ll see how many can be identified.

Anyway, some random thoughts…

-----Original Message-----
From: Ethnoornithology@... [mailto:Ethnoornithology@...] On Behalf Of Robert Gosford
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 3:38 PM
To: Ethnoornithology@...
Subject: [Ethnoornithology] Re: Bird ID, field work and research participants

Dear Rob,

I note the reference to your informant being unsettled looking at a
bird through binoculars and this reminds me of one of the traps when
using material that many of us would consider uncontroversial - ie.
field guides and photographs. When working with traditional
Aboriginal people in Australia and trying to identify a particular
bird sp. in a known area through a field guide (which contains many
out-of-area spp.) it is fairly common for people to identify out-of-
range species that may share some characteristic of the 'target'
species - whether out of a desire to satisfy the investigator in
their his/her search or through the phenomenon known to linguists
as 'gratuitous concurrence' (this often occurs in police interviews
where suspects under questioning will agree to any proposition, no
matter how far-fetched, in order to satisfy the interrogator and get
out of the interview situation asap).

A similar reaction sometimes occurs with photographs - an 8 x 10
photo of a Willie Wagtail (a small Rhypidura sp.)is several times
life-size and many informants struggle with the notion of this giant
version and this can lead to misidentification - the same thing
happens when you 'shrink' a 2.5m wingspan Wedge-tailed Eagle down to
8 x 10.

Similar issues occur with the use of preserved specimens - many
Aboriginal people will often look to the feet first, in order to
work out the tracks of the beast, but find that unless there are
other distinctive identification points they can struggle to
positively identify the specimen - I think this relates to the
unlifelike presentation of most specimens.

It seems obvious but it seems that the best way to identify birds
(and other taxa) is through use of live specimens - either in the
field or in 'game park/open zoo' type situations. Fortunately we
have two excellent state-run 'wildlife parks (really zoos) in the
Northern Territory and these offer wonderful opportunities to see
birds close at hand. The other source that I've not yet used in the
field is sound recordings and these may be effective - I'd be
interested in any comments.

Cheers,

Robert Gosford

--- In Ethnoornithology@..., "FERGUS, Rob"
<rfergus@a...> wrote:
>

> One interesting anecdote, at one point we were looking at an Acorn
Woodpecker high up in a snag and handed the binoculars to our main
informant.  It really shook him up.  He said he felt like he was
flying.  I suppose in his experience, the only way he could get that
close to the bird would be to hover up high in the air.  He was much
more comfortable just hearing the birds, or dealing with those that
he could see without binoculars.
> Anyway, I'm really interested in expanding this to the K'eqchi
area of the Alta Vera Paz, where there are local villagers trained
to conduct point counts in the lands around their villages.  Lots of
cool stuff there.
>
> 
>
> 
>
> 
>
> Rob Fergus
> Senior Scientist | Urban Bird Conservation
> National Audubon Society                                  
> 545 Almshouse Road, Ivyland PA 18974
>
> Phone: 215 355 9588 x17                      
>
>                                    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ethnoornithology@...
[mailto:Ethnoornithology@...] On Behalf Of Leonardo
Cabrera
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:39 AM
> To: Ethnoornithology@...
> Subject: [Ethnoornithology] Re: Abstract - Human - Bird
relationships among the Ch'orti' Mayans of Guatemala
>
> 
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Would you share your presentation to the list? a paper you may
have?
> I am very interested in your research at Guatemala.
> Thank you
>
> Leonardo Cabrera
>
>
> --- In Ethnoornithology@..., "Robert Gosford"
> <kamibob1@h...> wrote:
> >
> > A recent presentation by Rob Fergisat the Middle States Division
of
> > the Association of American Geographers 2006 Annual Conference
> > October 13-14, Rutgers University in the United States
> >
> >
> > 2,000 YEARS OF BECOMING-BIRD: CH'ORTI' MAYA ETHNOORNITHOLOGY AND
> > HUMAN-BIRD
> > RELATIONSHIPS
> > Rob Fergus
> > Urban Bird Conservation
> > National Audubon Society
> > Ivyland PA 18974
> > ABSTRACT The Ch'orti' Maya of Jocotán, Guatemala descend from
Pre-
> > Classic and Classic Mayan ancestors that depended
> > on birds and bird plumages to legitimize and maintain their
> > political order. Over the course of two millennia, birds have
> > remained important to the Ch'orti', though changing
technologies,
> > political structures, local ecology, and traditions have altered
> > many ancient relationships with birds, as well as created new
ways
> > of relating to birds. This paper reports on recent field work
> > conducted in Jocotán, and explores the various ways that
Ch'orti'
> > individuals create relationships with birds, as well as how these
> > human-bird assemblages reflect or contrast with human-bird
> > relationships documented in the Mayan archaeological,
> > ethnohistoric, and ancient textual records.
> >
>