394 Snow Bunting: is regularly wintering in Estonian coast in small numbers (but not rare), especially on western islands. P.380 Goldfinch: is wintering in Estonia. Similarly the Finnish breeding areas are marked. 326 Booted Warbler: has regularly bred in SE Estonia since 2002. Maybe it should be included or at least yellow dotted line should be used. 296 Ring Ouzel: scarce but regular migrant on coast of Estonia and Finland. Rare in Latvia as well (status should be checked from Latvian birders). 248 Crested Lark: no confirmed breeding records for 15 years in Estonia. 244 Middle Spotted Woodpecker: breeder in Estonia, up to hundred pairs, mostly in South Estonia. Only regular breeding area is restricted to Saaremaa island nowadays. 242 Green Woodpecker: very rare breeder in mainland Estonia. 240 Roller: almost extinct as a breeder in Estonia. 238 Kingfisher: regular in winter in Estonia, although in small numbers. Is the species overwintering somewhere in central Europe? There are few winter records from Estonia (one bird survived very harsh winter). 238 Hoopoe: rare breeder in Estonia (approximately 10 pairs found during good years). 232 Little Owl: is the species really breeding in Latvia nowadays? 230 Barn Owl: is the species really breeding in Latvia nowadays? I guess not, or very sporadically then.? Maybe the winter distribution dotted line should be stretched farther similarly to Pine Grosbeak. 226 Hawk Owl: some birds are regularly seen in Estonia and southern Finland, especially during influxes. At least Latvia is marked as a breeding area, so i suppose that Estonia should be marked as well. 206 White-winged Tern: increasingly common breeder in Estonia. Coast and inland are very hard to separate in small print.? 200 Arctic Tern: is not breeding inland Estonia. ?p.198 Little Tern: i suppose it’s a very rare breeder in inland Latvia? ?p.166 Ruff: status should be checked in future editions, since the species has almost extinct as a breeder in Estonia.? Is the species really breeding somewhere inland in Latvia or Russia? ?p.134 Oystercatcher: the red dot around SE Estonia is confusing. P.116 Red-footed Falcon: very rare and sporadic breeder in Estonia (1 or 2 cases in last 20 years), although regularly seen during migration and influxes. 82 Great Egret: has been increasingly regular summer-autumn visitor in Estonia and Latvia (both inland and coast), few hundred have been seen yearly in recent years in both countries. 64 Black-necked Grebe: is not breeding in Estonia anymore (has always been a very rare breeder). The only regular place is Lake Hino in SE Estonia where 1-2 pairs breed regularly. 61 Black-throated Diver: rare breeder in Estonia. 38 Velvet Scoter: breeds only in Estonian coastal areas 32 Tufted Duck: is regularly wintering in Estonian and Finnish coastal waters (thousands in some years). Maybe one more narrow yellow dotted line should be added (as in Red-breasted Goose)? Although scarce, it’s probably more common than Lesser White-fronted Goose for example (often 30+ birds seen, but probably many go overlooked). 18 Pink-footed Goose: regularly seen every year during migration. Hopefully Latvian collegues can comments on those. I put the question marks in cases which i wasn’t 100% sure. Steve can add those comments to the errata list if he thinks that these are relevant. Going through all the comments sent so far must be exhausting for them. I hope Killian and Lars don’t mind, i’m sorry if the following information is worthless. Maybe it helps to pay attention to these species in the future editions. I went through the maps and give comments about Estonian context. If a “good bird” is seen in a place which is a breeding area by the field guide, but actually it’s very rare there, then visiting observer (who doesn’t have up-to-date information) is not motivated to report the record. This way important information can be lost. It’s worse if distributions are stretched to the areas where the species actually is not breeding or is a rarity. It’s not a tragedy if some species distribution is presented lackingly. I’m sure that many people would help in many ways (as we have seen the effective work of volunteer proof-readers of Birdforum). The breeding atlases give the “official basis” to make improvements in the maps, but more up-to-date information can be received from the local rarities committee members (or Birdlife partner organisations) which is probably also acceptable “official” way. I know that comments about the distribution maps can’t be incorporated in the book just because “somebody in the net commented it”. This book aims towards perfection in many ways (and succeeds in my opinion) so improving the distribution maps in the next prints gives extra value for the book i guess. Although a field guide is not a bird atlas, the information about distribution can be of invaluable importance in some cases.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |