National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 7th Edition Paperback – Illustrated, September 12, 2017

This is a great field guide if you want everything in one place, not if you want a field guide you could actually take into the field with you as a warning. I love just sitting outside with this and my binoculars or even reading through it in preparation for upcoming trips. This is a great source of truth for me when I want to reference a question. The illustrations are incredibly well done and include multiple stages of life, molt, etc. for each bird. I would recommend this as a main field guide to have on hand for anyone starting to get into birds.

Excellent reference book on birds of NA. Colourful illustrations assist in readily ID'ing birds.

I recently replaced my old edition of this work with this, the fifth edition and must say I am quite pleased. I am one of those individuals (like many birders) who rely on a number of field guides and reference books. The previous edition of this work has for a number of years been one of the pillars I rely on.Now everyone has their own favorite field guide and of course I am no exception. How a guide becomes the favorite of any individual depends upon numerous factors, but I have found one of the leading reason is simply that each birder uses what he or she is most familiar with or the first guide they began using. With me, as many, many others, I have been a Peterson fan for well over 50 years. I still use the Peterson guides and they are the first book I reach for. But this is not to say that I am not oh so grateful for all of the other wonderful identification books we now have available, this work from National Geographic included. More about that later....I find the pictures in this particular guide very helpful and for the most part extremely accurate. If you compare the illustrations in this work with Sibley or Kauffman, it stands up pretty well. I find that the Peterson work will bring identification points to my attention quicker and I find both Sibley and Peterson easier to use from a visual aspect, but I suspect that is personal preference and simply what I have become more use to over the years.Now as to illustrations, in my case I find that if I use one illustrated guide (or two or three) combined with a guide that uses photographs, such as the Audubon or Smithsonian, my chances of identifying what ever it is I am trying to identify, increase greatly. I am a strong believer in using multiple books!The range guides in this work are quite good as far as it goes, but as with all guides and filed books, you have to remember that ranges are not written in stone. We are going through a tremendous range change at present due to the climate changes we are experiencing and as each year passes, I am amazed at the number of species If spot that have no right to be where they are; according range maps. Birders need to be alert to this.I like the quick find index found in this book and love the thumbtabs which are quite handy. This edition includes "every North American Species - 967 in all." Two things to note here: First, the species count is continually changing with new subspecies being added and older subspecies being grouped. I no of no field guide that can constantly keep up with this as quickly as changes take place. Secondly, beginning birders often make the mistake of including Mexico and parts of Central America as "North America." This is not the way they have divided up the "bird world." Anything south of the U.S. boarder is not considered North America as far as bird guides go.Note: As has been pointed out by a number of reviewers here, the arrangement of this work may take some getting use to as the authors have used the new taxanomic order as approved of by the American Ornithologist Union. This will be no problem for new birders, but old birds like myself had to do some mental adjustments when first using this work.I would never ever make the statement to the effect that "if you only have one bird book to your name...." as I am a strong believer in multiple books but that being said, if you do indeed want only one book, then I hardly feel you would go wrong with this one.Don BlankenshipThe Ozarks

Great book!

I love birds

Three weeks after the following review: Nothing is perfect and, when it comes to field guides of anything (butterflies, bugs, wildflowers), what one really wants is ALL the information and ALL the photographs showing ALL the phases. Long after I'm gone, I envision some sort of encyclopedia of birds on Kindle, but until then I think that one has to use what can be had with its imperfections. I still place NG's book in 4th place, but I'm moving up the rating because of the quality and size (not quantity) of illustrations. Remember, this is larger in size than most field guides.I don't carry a field guide with me when I'm "shooting." I capture birds, dragonflies, butterflies, and whatnot as I find them, and then try and find out what they are when I get home, using these guides. If I had to carry one with me, say on vacation, it would be Sibley's. But, NG is decent enough for finding the bird you're trying to identify, though a little more difficult even with the thumbtabs. I think my disappointment may well come from the fact that National Geographic is known for its photography, but the guide is illustrated, and with fewer views than I would have liked.***As I've said before, I dislike writing book reviews whether it's a novel (which I then really have to read) or a field guide to birds, insects, spiders, or other critters. However, while I will never be considered a "birder," I have gotten into the habit of collecting field guides. The first one I bought (brand new) was Golden Books North American Birds published in 1964, long before I could get a shot (photo) or one sitting still, let alone flying.Now, I have 11 books on birds, one part of a nature series from 1966 which is MY standard for bird photography. Every photo is "National Geographic" quality, but the books are by Doubleday.There's a reason for this preface: any review I write would be a comparative review, and the National Geographic "Field Guide to Birds of North America" would come in fourth out of the 11 I have, with "The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America" coming in first overall, a book I will now rate at 4.5 stars.Neither book includes photographs, and it may seem surprising to the reader of this review that I still rate Sibley as #1 since I am primarily a photographer rather than an "identifier" (well, until after I have a shot of a bird that is not within my experience). The following is a list of what I don't care for about the National Geographic (Fifth Edition). Whatever I say would be the opposite for Sibley except as noted.#1. White NG has a list on both the front and back covers, it is neither complete, nor does it make it easier to find the bird. For example, I just took a marvelous picture of a greater scaup (a duck). NG's front cover is by bird families, and for those of you unfamiliar with field guides, invariably ducks and geese will be first meaning that the families are not in alphabetical order, and for the totally uninitiated such as I, you'd scratch your head wondering why Tyrant Flycatchers would follow Gulls.The back cover is a quick find index which is in alphabetical order. However, it is completely incomplete, and Greater or Scaup are not listed. So, it's a quick find if you have some idea as to what the common name of the bird is. But then, wait till you get to sparrows, warblers, buntings, and others that all look alike to me, and after taking pictures for 50 years, I've got a fairly critical eye, though not much education. But a bird in the bush could be any one of these, and a bird in the hand isn't going to wait for you to look it up in your field guide. It will leave a calling card however, but there are no field guides to bird calling cards as far as I know.#2. The illustrations are excellent; there just aren't enough of them in one place. National Geographic, rightly or wrongly, puts the outlines of the flying sketches on two to four pages after the main descriptions, while Sibley has the flight pictures along with the bird in different seasons. While the Sibley illustrations are smaller, they seem to be more detailed.#3. National Geographic's index includes family names in Latin along with common names. It is also placed about 10 pages in from the end of the book. Oddly, while the one thing that I normally would like about NG is that there are thumbtabs that Sibley doesn't have, but there is no thumbtabs that would be the most useful, i.e., for the Index.#4. The maps for migration, winter, summer, and year-round are on the very first page of Sibley, and on page 18 of NG. Yes, I could use a little post-it, but that's not the point. It's a failure in organization.Sibley is by no means perfect. Perfect would be photographs instead of sketches...or would it? Probably not because of the variations in lighting and plumage during the year. Both books give changes in plumage, and the differences between male and female, yet I found Sibley to have better and more juvenile pictures which, living in a hotbed of migration routes, I could really use. Sibley even has the red orbital for the adult ring-bill gull in mating season which is neither mentioned nor shown in NG. Why is that important? Because when I got a closeup of a ring-bill last week and had never seen the red around the eye, I thought I had found something unusual, like a gull who'd had too much to drink at New Year's.#5. Well, the reviewers warned me about the size of NG's 5th edition. It's a little too large to be schlepping along with a camera or binoculars, though leave it to true birders who seem to be willing to pack 35 pounds of gear for their hobby ... which often is just counting these beautiful creatures instead of enjoying their beauty and the fact that they can fly (without concern for leg room).If you just like field guides, get this book. If you're really trying top identify birds, get Sibley. Do not get "Birds of California Field Guide" by Stan Tekiela. He's got great photographs, and he tried the impossible - organizing by color, but he failed. Males and females, sun and shadow, water reflections, and the direction of the sun and time of day can alter the color of a bird's plumage. An Anna's Humming Bird with the sun on it's back is going to be primarily green. Not so. And under what color would you put a wood duck or a pheasant? He's got the female wood duck as brown. Fair enough. But the male as green when it has five primary colors? But the photos are great. I guess the ideal field guide would be 2,500 pages and weigh 15 pounds, but then it wouldn't be ideal, would it?(There are photographs on my nature photography web site, with all my books, and the help of three experts in Ontario and Arizona and the local Audubon Society are still just guesses.)

Excelente producto, recomendado!

Covers all birds of North America, including migrants from other countries. Also list rare of extinct birds with dialogue explanation. Finger indexed for quick reference. A nice resource to have.