tauk_118_129.271

Atlas of Breeding Birds of Tennessee

Author: Aborn, David A.

Source: The Auk, 118(1) : 277-278

Published By: American Ornithological Society

URL: https://doi.org/10.1642/0004-8038(2001)118[0277:]2.0.CO;2

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles

in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations,

museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your

acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use.

Usage of BioOne Complete content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non - commercial use.

Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as

BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit

publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to

critical research.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

271

Reviews

DITED BY

EBECCA

OLBERTON

The following critiques express the opinions of the individual evaluators regarding the strengths,

weaknesses, and value of the books they review. As such, the appraisals are subjective assessments

and do not necessarily reﬂect the opinions of the editors or any ofﬁcial policy of the American

Ornithologists’ Union.

The Auk 118(1):271–272, 2001

A Photographic Guide to North American Rap-

tors.—Brian K. Wheeler and William S. Clark. 1999.

Academic Press, San Diego, California. xviii 1 198

pp., 377 color photographs. ISBN 0-12-745531-0. Pa-

per, $19.95.—Field guides are to ﬁeld ornithologists

what hammers are to carpenters: essential tools of

the trade. With the right ﬁeld guide in hand, even a

novice ﬁeld worker in a new land stands a sporting

chance of identifying birds. Without a good ﬁeld

guide, frustration can quickly set in. The role that

ﬁeld guides (together with their essential compan-

ion, binoculars) have played in ornithology is difﬁ-

cult to overstate. Consider for example, our under-

standing of the migratory behavior of Broad-winged

Hawks (Buteo platypterus). At the beginning of the

twentieth century, this obligate transequatorial mi-

grant was thought by many to be a resident species

throughout much of its North American breeding

range. The broadwing was, after all, cryptic and dif-

ﬁcult to see during the breeding season. The paucity

of winter broadwing sightings, confounded by their

frequent misidentiﬁcation as young Red-shouldered

Hawks (B. lineatus), led even seasoned ﬁeld workers

to consider the broadwing a year-round inhabitant

in many areas.

All of that changed, however, as prismatic binoc-

ulars came into widespread use among ﬁeld work-

ers, leading to the development of the modern ﬁeld

guide. Roger Tory Peterson’s A Field Guide to the Birds

(1934) and its successors, as well as other regional

bird guides revolutionized ﬁeld identiﬁcation of

birds. But, over the years, that was reﬁned to the

point where the guides themselves demanded the

creation of a new kind of bird guide devoted to spe-

ciﬁc birds within a particular region.

For raptors, these new specialty guides have run

the gamut from ‘‘gestalt’’ text driven—black-and-

white illustrated offerings like Harkness and Mur-

doch’s Birds of Prey in the Field (Witherby Press, Lon-

don, 1971) and Dunne, Sibley and Sutton’s Hawks in

Flight: The Flight Identiﬁcation of North American Mi-

grant Raptors (Houghton Mifﬂin, Boston, 1988)—

through Clark and Wheeler’s traditional full-color,

art-driven A Field Guide to Hawks in North America

(Houghton Mifﬂin, Boston, 1987) to, ﬁnally, the col-

or-photograph-ﬁlled volume reviewed here.

Kimball L. Garrett’s excellent review of the 1995

edition of Wheeler and Clark appeared in The Auk in

1997 (Auk 114:306–307). I won’t go over previously

trodden ground here as the current edition remains

almost identical to the earlier hardcover edition ex-

cept for a new cover, some minor corrections in type-

setting, some photo reorientation, and several addi-

tions to the text that focus principally on age

differences in eye color. I will, instead, reﬂect on my

experiences using the earlier version and introduc-

ing it to others while working at a raptor migration

observation site in eastern Pennsylvania in the Unit-

ed States.

Anyone who has spent time in the ﬁeld helping

others identify raptors knows that the new observers

will need all the help they can get. Although raptors

are relatively large birds, under many circumstances

they can be difﬁcult, often impossible, to identify to

species level. Although part of the difﬁculty arises

from the ﬂeeting glimpses we often have of the birds,

much of the problem can be traced to subtle intra-

speciﬁc variation in their appearance. In many in-

stances, plumage variation within a species can be

greater than between species, making identiﬁcation

quite difﬁcult at times. Wheeler and Clark deal with

those circumstances by presenting 377 color photo-

graphs of North American raptors and vagrants, as

compared to 33 and 193 images, respectively, in the

ﬁrst (1934) Peterson bird guide and the most recent

National Geographic Field Guide to the Birds of North

America (National Geographic Society, Washington,

D.C., 1999). In most instances, the photos in Wheeler

and Clark’s guide are crisp, clear, and helpful. Nu-

ances in species-speciﬁc coloration and individual

variation within species, including those related to

age and sex, are further detailed in the relatively

sparse text and highlighted in the volume’s copious

photo legends. The book also provides an exhaustive

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

272 [Auk, Vol. 118Reviews

(sometimes a bit exhausting) review of the general

complexities of raptor identiﬁcation.

Does the book succeed in its avowed mission?

Most certainly, but only when used in conjunction

with other guides. Although I would not recommend

Wheeler and Clark’s volume as a ﬁrst and only guide

for most hawk watchers, I would recommend it as a

supplement to other specialty raptor guides. In con-

junction with a more comprehensive bird guide, the

book can turn an otherwise frustrating day at a rap-

tor migration observation site into a rewarding ex-

perience for teacher and pupil alike. The work can

also serve as a great teaching tool away from the

ﬁeld. In summary, I highly recommend this useful

guide amazingly priced at $10.00 less than its 1995

edition!—K

EITH

L. B

ILDSTEIN

, Hawk Mountain Sanc-

tuary, Kempton, Pennsylvania 19529, USA.

The Auk 118(1):272–274, 2001

Research and Management of the Brown-headed

Cowbird in Western Landscapes.—Michael L. Mor-

rison, Linnea S. Hall, Scott K. Robinson, Stephen I.

Rothstein, D. Caldwell Hahn, and Terrell D. Rich

(Eds). 1999. Studies in Avian Biology, Vol. 18. 312 pag-

es, 12 maps, 94 tables, 80 ﬁgures. ISBN 1-891276-06-

9. Cloth, $18.00.—This collection of 33 papers and 3

summaries by 89 authors is a subset of 67 presenta-

tions given at a symposium held at California State

University, Sacramento, California, 23–25 October

1997, and sponsored by the Partners in Flight Re-

search Group, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and

U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Divi-

sion. Much work on cowbird–host interactions has

been accomplished in central and eastern North

America. This symposium was organized to bring

together the results of current work and the per-

spectives on potential affects of cowbirds on hosts in

western landscapes. Although preceding it in pub-

lication of papers, it follows the lead of a symposium

held in Austin, Texas in 1993 (Smith et al. 2000). In

large part, this volume was quickly completed

through determination and reciprocal reviews by the

contributing authors and editors.

The collection of papers is divided into three sec-

tions. The ﬁrst section deals with cowbird ecology

and factors affecting cowbird abundance and distri-

bution. The second addresses effects of brood para-

sitism on host reproductive performance and dis-

cusses the potential criteria for taking management

action. The third section focuses on some aspects of

cowbird control.

The authors of the summary chapters (Hall, Rob-

inson, Rothstein, and Smith) present what is depict-

ed as emerging perspectives and consensus, under-

scoring heterogeneity in cowbird distributions and

their potential effects on host populations. The sum-

mary chapters also include the perspective that, al-

though cowbirds may have signiﬁcant inﬂuence on

the success of parasitized nests, their effect on most

host populations may be relatively minor. Under that

perspective, concerns for cowbird control may be

overrated and should be limited to some endangered

species or local populations. In addition, alternatives

to cowbird trapping and removal need more consid-

eration, particularly at the landscape level. Rich, in

the preface, also acknowledges the need for a better

understanding of proximate relationships between

cowbirds and cattle and spatial relationships be-

tween host parasitism patterns and landscape fea-

tures of the West.

In many ways, the volume represents the current

state of cowbird research and management. Some

papers depict clear advances in our understanding of

cowbird distributions and the relationships of cow-

birds to their hosts. Collectively, the volume incor-

porates a great amount of data on cowbird biology,

a testimony to the current level of activity. Its

weighting to western landscapes also presents an

emerging slant on cowbird–host biology that is

unique to this volume. However, although the vol-

ume contains some of the best current research and

some expansions of perspective, it also includes

some signiﬁcant analytic and conceptual limitations.

The initial section may be the volume’s greatest

strength. Those papers generally deal with issues af-

fecting cowbird distribution at landscape levels and

how habitat features may be related to high or low

rates of parasitism. Robinson develops a respectable

summary of that section, providing previous perspec-

tives, then presenting hypotheses and predictions

such that they can be evaluated with the results of the

contained papers. Tewksbury et al. may provide one

of the strongest analytical algorithms and its results

at the local landscape level. Young and Hutto give an

expansive evaluation of cowbird abundance at a

broader landscape level, whereas Staab and Morrison

identify speciﬁc habitat features that are related to

higher parasitism levels. Several papers examining

cowbird abundance and parasitism intensity show

limited effects on hosts in shrubsteppe habitats (Van

der Haegen and Walker, Farmer, and Ellison).

The second section, summarized by Smith, howev-

er, may be more problematic than enlightening. Smith

attempts to isolate consequences of parasitism on host

populations from consequences on host individuals or

host nests. He acknowledges the lack of reliable esti-

mates for ‘‘key demographic parameters needed to

model the impacts of parasitism reliably.’’ Few studies

deal with intrinsic growth rates. Under that handicap,

he develops an argument that, even when the cost to

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

January 2001] 273Reviews

some host individuals is high, the cost of parasitism

to host populations or host communities is relatively

small; only isolated populations of a few select species

with limited distributions may be under signiﬁcant

threat from parasitism. From his interpretations, he

develops some management guidelines for deciding

when to implement local cowbird-control programs.

Two basic problems are evident in that section and

in the cowbird literature at large. First, there are sev-

eral prevalent analytical misconceptions; many statis-

tics are accepted with little or no consideration as to

whether the results were products of biological pro-

cesses or artifacts of sampling design or analysis, or

both. For example, almost all estimates of parasitism

level are given as percents of observed samples, with

the failure to recognize lessons of Mayﬁeld (1961,

1975) indicating that samples of passerine nests are

generally incomplete and nonrandom. The same prin-

ciples that would cause one to apply the Mayﬁeld ap-

proach for evaluating nest predation also apply to

nests that are parasitized and abandoned. Because

nest sample data will be most deﬁcient in nests that

fail early in their nesting cycles, a disproportionate

number of nests that were parasitized and abandoned

will be missed. The incomplete and nonrandom nest

sample issue incorporates itself signiﬁcantly in sum-

mary analyses that use studies with biased statistics

(e.g. Lorenzana and Sealy, Whitﬁeld and Sogge).

Several papers attempting to deal with seasonal fe-

cundity overlooked renestings, or assumed, implicitly

or explicitly, that females of their study species nested

only once during their breeding seasons (e.g. Greene;

Hahn et al.). Greene’s general algorithm for assessing

intrinsic growth rates was perhaps most respectable

in the volume. However, his claim of limited renesting

for an ‘‘intensively monitored’’ group of Lazuli Bun-

tings (Passerina amoena) appeared to be generated

from a small and perhaps opportunistic sample of

nests (Table 3); that may have created the pessimistic

conclusions regarding the threat of cowbirds to bun-

ting populations. In contrast, the failure of Hahn et al.

to consider renestings of hosts in deriving an upper

bound of only 8.16 eggs laid per female cowbird in

acceptor host nests may have created the authors’ rel-

atively benign conclusion for cowbird effects on hosts.

The assumption of one to three renestings per host fe-

male would adjust estimates of Hahn et al. to 16–35

eggs per female cowbird. Their egg estimation gen-

erated speculation of much higher parental invest-

ment by cowbirds in their eggs, concepts empirically

unsupported in their manuscript. Overall, the analyt-

ical misconceptions in this section do not help clarify

the issue regarding effect of cowbirds on their hosts.

The second underlying weakness of this section, as

well as in other parts of the volume, are misconcep-

tions incorporated into design and interpretation of

analysis that are actually removed from population

models and population parameters. For example,

Robinson et al. develop an analysis design combin-

ing potential host species that eject cowbird eggs laid

in their nests with those that abandon a signiﬁcant

proportion of parasitized nests. They reason that

both of those host groups cause a signiﬁcant percent

loss in cowbird eggs laid, resulting in a detrimental

effect on cowbird populations. However, the param-

eter of interest in population models is young pro-

duced per female. Five successful eggs out of 10 pro-

duced per female (50% egg success) is as equally

successful a strategy as producing 5 young from 20

eggs (25% egg success). Attention to population

models would not have created that functionally

misleading analysis design proposed by the authors.

Their conclusion that habitats containing species that

abandon parasitized nests can serve as sinks for cow-

birds is numerically undemonstrated. They fail to

consider the compensatory strategy cowbirds have

of laying more eggs, and they also fail to explain how

cowbirds became abundant enough in those habitats

so that their numbers could subsequently decline.

In another example, DeGroot et al. failed to con-

sider dispersal in their analysis design contrasting

host communities between areas only 5–10 km apart

that were either trapped or untrapped for cowbirds.

Because untrapped sites are easily within expected

dispersal distances of both hosts and cowbirds in

trapped areas, treatments are not discrete and com-

parisons are not independent.

Although the second section struggles with prob-

lems mentioned above, it also assembles some useful

approaches to the study of cowbird and host popu-

lation dynamics. With relatively minor caveats, the

fundamental model structure of Citta and Mills, and

the basic algorithm of Greene, provide some high-

lights for taking a population perspective.

The third section contains a small collection of pa-

pers on efﬁcacy of local cowbird-control programs.

Eckrich et al. (recognizing a less than pure statistical

design) provide an honest attempt to extract value

from the large data set amassed at Fort Hood, Texas.

Clotfelter et al. provide a credible site-scale perspec-

tive on the effects of burning on the use of Red-

winged Blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus) as hosts by

cowbirds.

The summary by Hall and Rothstein confronts the

efﬁcacy of local cowbird removal in increasing host

populations. However, the authors operate under

some of the same constraints listed above by inter-

preting statistically weak treatments tangential to

the context of demographic and population models.

For example, they assume that estimates of parasit-

ism are accurate, and that parasitism was reduced to

very low levels in several Willow Flycatcher (Empi-

donax traillii) studies (neither are necessarily true;

see above). The low response in ﬂycatcher numbers

caused the authors to conclude that factors other

than cowbird trapping were more important to ﬂy-

catcher reproduction, rather than considering the

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

274 [Auk, Vol. 118Reviews

possibility that the cowbird trapping was ineffec-

tively implemented.

Hall and Rothstein digress somewhat from local

cowbird-control removals to potential landscape al-

ternatives. Sorely overlooked in that treatment was a

critical appraisal of broad-scale control options. In

fact, data and analyses of several studies elsewhere

in this volume suggest potential cowbird effects on

host communities and the value of broad-scale con-

trol options when using population perspectives

(e.g. Citta and Mills, Greene, DeGroot et al., Peer and

Sealy), but were not considered by Hall and Roth-

stein. In addition, the authors also include a treat-

ment of a number of less science-based issues (e.g.

rights of cowbirds, excessive money spent on trap-

ping, proﬁt motives of trappers) related to the de-

velopment of scientiﬁcally sound management prac-

tices without recognizing that these can often

complicate scientiﬁc evaluation.

Although this inexpensive volume contains some

very good papers, there are hidden costs of treading

a mineﬁeld of analytical and conceptual traps (thus

wasting time and conservation dollars). This volume

should be in all university libraries, and can be of use

to researchers and decision makers for cowbird man-

agement, but with the caveat that little should be tak-

en for granted. As researchers solidify analytical is-

sues and take on more structured population-based

perspectives, the understanding of cowbird–host

processes and appropriate management consider-

ations should improve substantially. This volume

will still likely expand the general perspectives on

this path.—J

OSEPH

A. G

RZYBOWSKI

, College of Mathe-

matics and Science, University of Central Oklahoma, Ed-

mond, Oklahoma 73034, USA.

ITERATURE

ITED

AYFIELD

, H. F. 1961. Nesting success calculated

from exposure. Wilson Bulletin 73:255–261.

AYFIELD

, H. F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating

nest success. Wilson Bulletin 87:456–466.

MITH

,J.N.M.,T.L.C

OOK

,S.I.R

OTHSTEIN

,S.K.

OBINSON

AND

S. G. S

EALY

(Eds.). 2000. The Bi-

ology and Management of Cowbirds and Their

Hosts. University of Texas Press, Austin.

The Auk 118(1):274–277, 2001

Swifts: A Guide to the Swifts and Treeswifts of

the World. 2nd edition.—Phil Chantler. 1998. Yale

University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. 272 pp.,

24 color plates, numerous maps & line drawings.

ISBN 0-300-07936-2. Cloth, $40.00.—The ﬁrst edition

of this book appeared in 1995 among a host of sim-

ilarly designed volumes on individual bird families

published by Pica Press and others. Reviewers in the

formal ornithological literature have often wondered

for whom such texts were intended. The emphasis in

these books is, as explicitly stated in this one, ‘‘ﬁrst

and foremost an identiﬁcation guide,’’ yet one will

surely not take a suitcase full of these volumes on

any foreign ﬁeld trip. The texts tended to be written

by European (mostly British) ﬁeld observers and are

notably short on biological and ecological informa-

tion. These are not the compendia of an acknowl-

edged expert’s life work, such as Short (1982) on

woodpeckers or, more recently in the Oxford Press

series, the wonderful syntheses by Kemp (1995) on

hornbills, or Frith and Beehler (1998) on birds of

paradise.

Collins (1997) concluded his review of the ﬁrst edi-

tion of Swifts by suggesting that the ‘‘limited audi-

ence’’ for this effort was only those of ‘‘the globe-

trotting birding community.’’ By that I suppose he

means someone like me. I like to have on my shelves

a summary of the global state of knowledge about a

group of birds, and particularly such a difﬁcult

group as the swifts (the small swifts of New Guinea

and the Philippines certainly confused me in the

ﬁeld). I often photocopy relevant portions to take on

trips; indeed, color photocopying is advanced and

inexpensive enough to make copying selected color

plates worthwhile. Thus I have been a sucker for

those books, but, with the exception of the Oxford

Press series, have been mostly disappointed. If the

books are not intended to summarize all that is

known about a set of birds, but, instead, emphasize

identiﬁcation and distribution, authors should at

least (1) provide current, state-of-the art identiﬁca-

tion material, (2) adequately consult the literature

and had a wide spectrum of ﬁeld experts review

drafts, (3) provide decent plates, (4) have distribu-

tion maps that are up-to-date and reasonably precise

where a range is known, and avoid the suggestion of

accuracy of a range that is not well known, and (5)

be consistent and well-informed in the presentation

of their perspective on contentious issues related to

taxonomy, phylogeny, and English names. The ef-

forts by Chantler on those points have fallen short in

some, if not all, of those areas.

I bought the ﬁrst edition of Swifts and took photo-

copied pages with me to Gabon and South Africa. My

initial impression was this one might be better than

most. The bibliography was lengthy and the acknowl-

edgments listed several important experts on certain

swifts in Africa and Southeast Asia. The Old World

material seemed reasonably good (indeed, this book

evolved from a paper on the identiﬁcation of Western

Palearctic swifts that appeared in the journal Dutch

Birding) and the maps, consulted while I was in Af-

rica, seemed adequate. However, the New World ma-

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

January 2001] 275Reviews

terial seemed a lot weaker (see comments below). I

was also not impressed with the plates and, although

they acknowledge that capturing the shape of ﬂying

swifts is not easy, the paintings of the swifts in Cali-

fornia that I am most familiar with were not very

good. The reviews of the ﬁrst edition generally sup-

ported those impressions. Old World ﬁeld observers

heaped praise (e.g. Turner 1996, Anon 1996), but a

Neotropical ﬁeld expert gave it a witheringly negative

review (Howell 1996). Reviewers in the more formal

ornithological literature were not much impressed

(e.g. Perrins 1996, Collins 1997) but did make many

speciﬁc suggestions for improvement. Because of this

apparent feedback, I had high hopes for the second

edition. Any second edition in this genre is uncom-

mon. That one appeared ﬁve years after the ﬁrst edi-

tion, giving enough time for Chantler to have consid-

ered comments and corrections from readers and

reviewers and to have followed up with any experts

who were not initially consulted. This would have

greatly improved the product accordingly, particular-

ly strengthening the New World material.

This second edition differs from the ﬁrst in several

signiﬁcant ways. The artist Gerald Driessens is no

longer listed as the junior author. The jacket says

‘‘several plates have been revised by the artist’’ but I

found only one change: a new Plate 10 for African

spinetails. The art is better but it was not the plate in

most need of revision. The text has been renumbered

and lengthened by 26 pages, and there are about 75%

more bibliographic references. Yet those changes

have not signiﬁcantly improved the book. It’s more

up-to-date on some distribution details but, as stated

above, the serious weaknesses noted by reviewers in

the ﬁrst edition have yet to be corrected. None of the

many speciﬁc errors pointed out by Collins (1997)

were ﬁxed, except for a statement about the eggs of

Alexander Swift (Apus alexandri; more on that be-

low). Seemingly innumerable mistakes weakened the

impressive-looking bibliography. Collins noted the

misuse of ‘‘Anon.’’ in the bibliography when the au-

thor is actually known; those errors have been qua-

drupled in the new edition (none cited in the volume

are anonymous, unlike the unsigned short review be-

low cited as Anon 1995). The additional references in

the second edition do not actually reﬂect a more

thorough in-depth revision. Surely the only pub-

lished account of a swift in the Birds of North America

series would have been consulted, but Bull and Col-

lins (1993) was overlooked for the account of Vaux’s

Swift (Chaetura vauxi).

Chantler does cite several other papers published

by Evelyn Bull, but those are all erroneously listed in

the bibliography under ‘‘John Bull’’ (of New York

state fame). In addition, Howell (1996) questioned

whether the artist had ever ‘‘seen a live, free-ﬂying

Neotropical swift.’’ I now wonder how many of the

bibliographic references were actually read by the

author. And, although the dust jacket claims the ﬁrst

edition was ‘‘highly acclaimed,’’ it seems as if the au-

thor or publisher ignored the negative reviews.

In a book whose ﬁrst line claims it ‘‘is ﬁrst and

foremost an identiﬁcation guide,’’ the identiﬁcation

sections are the subject of special scrutiny. The big-

gest identiﬁcation challenge in North America is

Vaux’s versus Chimney (C. pelagica) swifts. Chantler

says that Vaux’s Swift is ‘‘best distinguished from

Chimney Swift by its more highly contrasting rump

and uppertail-coverts, generally paler grey-brown

plumage, and best of all by the underpart pattern.’’

Whereas those plumage differences provide useful

secondary points, I consider size, shape, and vocal-

izations signiﬁcantly more important. When the two

species occur together (as they occasionally do in

California and elsewhere), size and shape differenc-

es are apparent. Even when the species are not pre-

sent together, size comparisons with frequently ad-

jacent swallows can be helpful (e.g. Vaux’s Swift is

nearly as small as Violet-green Swallow [Tachycineta

thalassina], and the Chimney Swift is a tad larger

than the Barn Swallow [Hirundo rustica]).

Not only does this guide to swifts fail to mention

size and shape differences, but the two are painted

nearly the same size and shape in the plates. In ad-

dition, the line sketch of purported differences in

Vaux’s Swift when the tail is spread or not does not

match my ﬁeld experience with the Vaux’s Swift over

the past few weeks. Further, vocal differences are an-

other key but Chantler’s comment that Vaux’s Swift

is ‘‘rather softer than Chimney’’ is of little help. Ref-

erence to Bull and Collins (1993) would have helped.

They describe the Vaux’s Swift ‘‘high-pitched, rapid

chipping and buzzy insect like twitter given in

ﬂight’’ as compared to ‘‘Chimney Swift vocalization

lower-pitched with sharper chips predominating.’’

Kimball Garrett’s pithy characterization, that a

Vaux’s Swift ‘‘sounds like a Chimney Swift on ste-

roids,’’ captures the difference between the two spe-

cies well. But Chantler did not read Bull and Collins

or contact Garrett (whose name is misspelled

‘‘Garnst’’ in this book, an error pointed out in review

four years ago and left uncorrected).

The distribution maps for California swifts in the

ﬁrst edition could have been improved in the second.

For example, although the scale was sufﬁcient to map

the Vaux’s Swift breeding range in Santa Cruz and

Monterey counties south of San Francisco, it is not

shown for this area despite a series of relevant pub-

lications, including Roberson and Tenney (1993) and

Sterling and Paton (1996), that included maps.

Taxonomic and name decisions by Chantler were

also unsettling. Having some ﬁeld experience with

Hydrochous gigas (Giant or Waterfall Swiftlet) in Java,

I was surprised that the ﬁrst edition had merged that

genus with Collocalia swiftlets. Since the ﬁrst edition,

more recent research has supported Hydrochous as a

monotypic genus (Lee et al. 1996, Holmgren 1998).

Despite discussing some evidence in the second edi-

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

276 [Auk, Vol. 118Reviews

tion, Chantler has not revised his generic assign-

ment. That seems particularly ill advised because a

hefty portion of the introduction delves into differ-

entiating the genera of swifts. Likewise the English

name ‘‘Papuan Swift’’ is a particularly poor choice

for the enigmatic Collocalia papuensis, one of the rar-

est and least-known New Guinea species, and called

by all Papuan authorities (e.g. Somadikarta 1967,

Coates 1985, Beehler et al. 1986) the distinctive and

useful name ‘‘Three-toed Swiftlet.’’ Although Chan-

tler’s work could be inﬂuential, he showed poor

judgment in choosing Sibley and Monroe’s (1990)

misleading and ambiguous name over the long-es-

tablished moniker.

All this brings into question the quality of the au-

thor’s research and judgment in the development of

this book. To further illustrate, consider the question

of the color of the eggs of Apus alexandri, a species en-

demic to the Cape Verde Islands. Although seemingly

an obscure issue, egg color has been considered of tax-

onomic importance (e.g. Brooke 1971). Citing Banner-

man and Bannerman (1966 [sic 5 1968]), the ﬁrst edi-

tion of Swifts said ‘‘This species is unique in the

Apodidae in having ﬁnely red-brown freckled (most

densely clustered at broadest end), not pure white

eggs.’’ What Bannerman and Bannerman actually

said, referring to a set collected by Alexander (1898),

was ‘‘These [eggs] were white, minutely freckled with

reddish-brown, forming a faint zone round the larger

end.’’ (I read that as tiny freckles around the large end

only, not throughout, but I digress.) In the second edi-

tion of Swifts, this text is replaced by the following,

‘‘eggs plain white (not ‘red-brown’ freckled)’’ citing

Hazevoet (1995). What Hazevoet actually said was

(internal citations omitted):

‘‘Brooke found that alexandri has no close relatives

and, for that reason, gave it speciﬁc rank. His judg-

ment appears to be at least partly based on the sup-

position that alexandri is the only swift that does not

lay plain white eggs, those described by Alexander

being freckled with reddish brown. The eggs col-

lected by Naurois, however, were pure white and

those collected by Alexander were presumably

misidentiﬁed.’’

This is detailed stuff but perhaps not unimportant.

Hazevoet (1995) is an unabashed proponent of the

phylogenetic species concept and, under that con-

cept, egg color is not relevant when discussing spe-

cies-level taxonomy. Yet, discounting Alexander’s

eggs as ‘‘presumably misidentiﬁed’’ is surely just

speculative at this point. Nothing in Alexander’s

(1898) or Bannerman and Bannerman’s (1968) de-

tailed discussion suggests that the nest found by Al-

exander with its two eggs were other than the swift’s.

If these eggs were misidentiﬁed, what were they?

Are they extant? If so, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to

check them out, especially if one was writing a major

new monograph on swifts? (The implication in Haz-

evoet is that Alexander deposited the material in the

British Museum and, therefore, could be examined.)

Whatever the answers, the issue is not as simple as

changing the egg description details from ‘‘red-

brown freckled’’ (ﬁrst edition) to ‘‘plain white, not

‘red-brown’ freckled’’ (second edition). In ornithol-

ogy, as in politics, the devil is in the details, and I am

not convinced the details were appropriately re-

searched for this volume.

Thus, despite my initial high hopes, I cannot rec-

ommend this new edition. If one already owns the

ﬁrst edition, the revisions in this new work do not

justify paying the price again. Those areas in most

need of reworking have not been changed and some

new material appears hastily compiled and ill-ad-

vised. If you don’t own the book, I recommend Chan-

tler’s (1999) text in Volume 5 of the Handbook of the

Birds of the World series. You’ll get much of the same

material plus better plates (by Ian Lewington) and

spectacular color photos (not to mention the sum-

maries on owls, nightjars, and hummingbirds). If a

small volume summarizing information about Old

World swifts is of use to you, Chantler’s Swift book

will ﬁll that niche. However, you should probably

look elsewhere for information about New World

swifts.—D

OBERSON

, 282 Grove Acre, Paciﬁc Grove,

California 93950, USA.

ITERATURE

ITED

LEXANDER

, B. 1898. Further notes on the ornithol-

ogy of the Cape Verde Islands. Ibis 4:277–285.

NON

. 1995. [review of] Swifts: A guide to the swifts

and treeswifts of the world, 1st ed. Bulletin of

the British Ornithologists’ Club 115:264.

ANNERMAN

,D.A.,

AND

W. M . B

ANNERMAN

. 1968.

History of the birds of the Cape Verde Islands.

Birds of the Atlantic Islands: vol. IV. Oliver and

Boyd, Ltd., Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

EEHLER

,B.M.,T.K.P

RATT

AND

D. A. Z

IMMERMAN

1986. Birds of New Guinea. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

ROOKE

, R. K. 1971. Taxonomic notes on some lesser

known Apus swifts. Bulletin of the British Or-

nithologists’ Club 91:33–36.

ULL

,E.L.,

AND

C. T. C

OLLINS

. 1993. Vaux’s Swift

(Chaetura vauxi). In The Birds of North America,

no. 77 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Academy Nat-

ural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Or-

nithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

HANTLER

, P. 1999. Family Apodidae (Swifts). Pages

388–457 in Handbook of the Birds of the World,

vol. 5: Barn-owls to Hummingbirds (J. de Hoyo,

A. Eliott, and J. Sargatal, Eds.). Lynx Edicions,

Barcelona, Spain.

OATES

, B. J. 1985. The Birds of Papua New Guinea.

Part I. Dove Publishing Ltd., Alderley, Australia.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

January 2001] 277Reviews

OLLINS

, C. T. 1997. [review of] Swifts: A guide to the

swifts and treeswifts of the world, 1st ed. Auk

114:152–154.

RITH

,C.B.,

AND

B. M. B

EEHLER

. 1998. The Birds of

Paradise. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

AZEVOET

, C. J. 1995. The Birds of the Cape Verde

Islands. British Ornithologists’ Union Check-

list, no. 13. British Ornithologists’ Union, Tring,

Hertfordshire, United Kingdom.

OLMGREN

, J. 1998. A parsimonious phylogenetic

tree for the swifts, Apodi, compared with DNA-

analysis phylogenies. Bulletin of the British Or-

nithologists’ Club 118:238–249.

OWELL

, S. N. G. 1996. [review of] Swifts: A guide to

the swifts and treeswifts of the world, 1st ed.

Cotinga 6:42–43.

EMP

, A. 1995. The Hornbills: Bucerotiformes. Ox-

ford University Press, Oxford.

,P.L.M.,D.H.C

LAYTON

,R.G

RIFFITHS

AND

D. M. P

AGE

. 1996. Does behavior reﬂect phylog-

eny in swiftlets (Aves: Apodidae)? A test using

cytochrome b mitrochondrial DNA sequences.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienc-

es USA 93:7091–7096.

ERRINS

, C. M. 1996. [review of] Swifts: A guide to

the swifts and treeswifts of the world, 1st ed.

Ibis 138:799–800.

OBERSON

,D.,

AND

C. T

ENNEY

, Eds. 1993. Atlas of the

Breeding Birds of Monterey County, California.

Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society, Carmel,

California.

HORT

, L. L. 1982. Woodpeckers of the World. Dela-

ware Museum of Natural History Monographs,

Series 4, Greenville, Delaware.

IBLEY

,C.G.,

AND

B. L. M

ONROE

. 1990. Distri-

bution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale

University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

OMADIKARTA

, S. 1967. A recharacterization of Col-

localia papuensis Rand, the Three-toed Swiftlet.

Proceedings of the United States National Mu-

seum 124:1–8.

TERLING

,J.,

AND

P. W. C . P

ATON

. 1996. Breeding dis-

tribution of Vaux’s Swift in California. Western

Birds 27:30–40.

URNER

, D. 1996. [review of] Swifts: A guide to the

swifts and treeswifts of the world, 1st ed. Bul-

letin of the African Bird Club 3:54–55.

The Auk 118(1):277–278, 2001

Atlas of Breeding Birds of Tennessee.—Charles P.

Nicholson. 1997. University of Tennessee Press,

Knoxville, Tennessee. xiii 1 426 pp., 176 black-and-

white drawings, 23 tables and ﬁgures, 281 distribu-

tion and abundance maps, 19 other maps. ISBN 0-

87049-987-4. Cloth, $45.00.—The Atlas of Breeding

Birds of Tennessee provides the ﬁrst detailed account

of the abundance and distribution of the 170 con-

ﬁrmed breeding bird species in the state. It is the

product of research conducted by the Tennessee Or-

nithological Society between 1986 and 1991. The ﬁrst

chapter, ‘‘The Atlas Project,’’ describes how creation

of the breeding bird atlas was conducted. That chap-

ter includes a description of the survey blocks, atlas

breeding codes, and a sample of a ﬁeld card used to

collect the data. The author describes the need for

‘‘miniroutes’’ (abbreviated Breeding Bird Survey

routes) to measure abundance. He also describes

how the data analysis and mapping were carried out.

The ﬁrst chapter also has maps of Tennessee that

provide details of the counties, major cities, as well

as state and federal land holdings.

The second chapter, ‘‘Landscape and Ornithology

of Tennessee,’’ comprises ﬁve sections. The ﬁrst sec-

tion, ‘‘The History of Tennessee Ornithology,’’ pro-

vides an outline of people who have studied or ob-

served Tennessee birds, from Louis Joliet’s notes

about seeing and collecting Carolina Parakeets (Con-

uropsis carolinensis) along the Mississippi River, to

the present day. The list of many people that have

contributed to Tennessee ornithology includes Al-

exander Wilson, John James Audubon, Edward

Drinker Cope, and William Brewster.

The second chapter section, ‘‘The Environment of

Tennessee,’’ describes and delineates the 10 physio-

graphic regions of Tennessee, ranging from the Blue

Ridge Province in the eastern part of the state, to the

Mississippi Alluvial Plain in the west. That section

also describes the state’s past and present climate as

well as possible climate changes that may occur in

the future. The section ﬁnishes with a description of

vegetation characteristic of each physiographic re-

gion and includes vegetation maps. The next section,

‘‘The Landscape of Tennessee,’’ describes the chang-

es that have taken place in the state’s landscape over

the years. Humans arrived in Tennessee about 10,000

years ago when the state was predominantly covered

by spruce-ﬁr forest. Mixed hardwood forests ap-

peared after the glacial retreat and are the predom-

inant native habitat in Tennessee today. Graphs il-

lustrate the degree of forest clearing that has taken

place as well as the amount of land now devoted to

agriculture. In many areas, mining and the loss of

wetlands have also inﬂuenced the landscape of Ten-

nessee. The author also provides a nice overview of

the state’s past and present physiognomy.

‘‘Historic Changes in the Tennessee Avifauna’’ fol-

lows the landscape section in Chapter 2. As this title

suggests, this section provides an account of the

changes in abundance and distribution of Tennessee

birds. Using historical accounts and surveys dating

back to the late 1880s and comparing them to mod-

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

278 [Auk, Vol. 118Reviews

ern surveys, we learn that 26 species have expanded

their range, whereas 10 species have either experi-

enced a decrease in their breeding range or have be-

caome extinct in Tennessee. Using Breeding Bird

Survey data, the atlas shows that 16 species have an

increasing population trend, whereas 39 species are

showing population declines. That section ﬁnishes

with a description of conservation efforts in the state

that include Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Os-

prey (Pandion haliaetus), and Bald Eagle (Haleaeetus

leucocephalus) restoration, and Partners in Flight ef-

forts on behalf of songbirds.

The last section of this chapter, ‘‘An Overview and

Analysis of Atlas Results,’’ contains the maps of atlas

block and miniroute locations. It also includes the

numbers and proportions of ‘‘possible,’’ ‘‘probable,’’

and ‘‘conﬁrmed’’ breeding species, a list of the 20

most frequently reported species, and the proportion

of Neotropical migrant species that have been de-

tected in the state. Cluster analysis and detrended

correspondence analysis are also provided to ex-

amine bird community groupings.

The third chapter, ‘‘Species Accounts,’’ makes up

most of the book. Species are listed in taxonomic or-

der. Each account consists of a text summary of that

species abundance, distribution, and breeding biol-

ogy. The descriptions are concise but informative.

Accounts include maps showing where the species

has been found and where the species has been

granted as possible, probable, or conﬁrmed status.

Abundance of species found during miniroute sur-

veys are displayed using contour maps. All of the

maps are well done and are easy to understand, giv-

ing the reader a good idea of where and in what con-

centrations the species may be found. Most species

accounts are accompanied by attractive line draw-

ings contributed by Elizabeth Chastain, Chris Mey-

ers, or David Vogt, who all contributed their talents

to the book.

Following the main species accounts, the ﬁnal

chapter, ‘‘Miscellaneous Species,’’ covers the 19 spe-

cies that are unconﬁrmed, extirpated or extinct, in-

troduced, or hybrid breeders in the state. Each ac-

count consists of a brief description of where a

particular species bred according to historical re-

cords. The only two such species that were detected

during the period covered by the atlas are Hermit

Thrush (Catharus guttatus) and Magnolia Warbler

(Dendroica magnolia), and distribution maps like

those provided in the ‘‘Species Accounts’’ chapter in-

dicate where they were found. As with the previous

chapter, the miscellaneous species accounts are brief

but informative.

Three appendices follow the last chapter. The ﬁrst

is a list of the common and scientiﬁc names of all

plant and animal species mentioned throughout the

book. The second appendix is a summary of breed-

ing chronologies for each species. The table lists the

ranges of dates on which eggs, nestlings, and ﬂedg-

lings have been found; this should be very useful for

anyone studying reproductive biology of Tennessee

birds. The last appendix is a list of known Brown-

headed Cowbird (Molothrus ater) hosts that occur in

the state. Again, this table provides a quick reference

for someone interested in brood parasitism in Ten-

nessee birds.

The book concludes with an extensive (25 pages)

Literature Cited section. The bibliography appears

to be exhaustive and is a valuable resource for ﬁnd-

ing references on a particular species or some aspect

of Tennessee natural history. In summary, this thor-

ough, informative and well-illustrated atlas is in-

valuable for anyone interested in studying, ﬁnding,

or learning about breeding birds in Tennessee. Al-

though designed primarily for the professional or-

nithologist, the atlas would be easily comprehended

by the layperson. It deﬁnitely belongs in personal as

well as university and public libraries.—D

AVID

BORN

, Department of Biological and Environmental

Sciences, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Chat-

tanooga, Tennessee 37403-2598, USA.

The Auk 118(1):278–279, 2001

Alien Species in North America and Hawaii: Im-

pacts on Natural Ecosystems.—George W. Cox.

1999. Island Press, Washington, D.C. xii 1 387 pp.

ISBN 1-55963-679-3. Cloth, $60.00, ISBN 1-55963-

680-7. Paper, $30.00.—This book focuses on one of

the greatest threats to biodiversity in North America,

the spread of alien (or exotic) species into ecosystems

across the continent. The United States is the most

‘‘invaded’’ country in the world for a variety of rea-

sons discussed herein (despite the title, this book fo-

cuses on the United States with minimal treatment

of Canada and Mexico). Cox makes the point that, for

the general public, this huge threat to North Amer-

ican (5United States) biodiversity is generally un-

known. Based on my own experience, I certainly

agree. Particularly obnoxious exotic species clearly

do become known to the public in the geographic

area invaded (in my part of the country one thinks

of zebra mussels, Dreissena polymorpha, or the Asian

honeysuckles, Lonicera spp.), but Cox’s exhaustive

treatment makes it quite clear that the problem goes

far beyond the better-known villains. The general

public (including most of our undergraduate stu-

dents) has little or no idea how severe the invasion is

or its ecological implications.

The book is laid out in ﬁve parts. The ﬁrst part (In-

troduction) comprises three chapters that indicate

the extent and historical perspective of the problem.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

January 2001] 279Reviews

Half of the book is included in the second part (Re-

gional Perspectives) wherein 10 regions of the con-

tinent (5United States) are treated. In terms of de-

scriptive data, this is the meat of the book, and I

found myself continually surprised by the great

number of exotic species that have invaded each re-

gion. The third part of Cox’s book (Biotic Perspec-

tives) includes three chapters that discuss exotic spe-

cies and the role that humans played in their

introduction. That includes the deliberate introduc-

tion of game species and the spread of North Amer-

ican native species into new parts of the country, as

well as the planned and unplanned release of human

associates (e.g. cats, rats, mice, pigs, and goats).

The three chapters in the fourth part (Theoretical

Perspectives) investigate ecological and evolutionary

patterns, including such questions as: ‘‘What makes

an invading species successful?’’ ‘‘What makes a

community vulnerable to invasion?’’ ‘‘Might invad-

ed communities reach alternative stable states?’’ and

‘‘What might be the evolutionary changes in both ex-

otic and native species in invaded communities?’’

My guess is that, for many readers, that section is po-

tentially the most interesting—it proved to be so for

me. However, at the same time, I was somewhat frus-

trated to learn how little we know about those pat-

terns and the fact that, at least at present, there sim-

ply are no clear answers to many of the questions

raised.

The last part (Policy Perspectives) includes two

chapters that ask the question, ‘‘What is to be done?’’

Even the most conservative estimates conclude that

dealing with the impact of exotic species costs the

United States several billion dollars a year (perhaps

over $100 billion per year!). Although the arsenal of

proposed ‘‘weapons’’ is broad, appropriate use of

these will require ecological wisdom not always

shown in the past.

Are the interests of The Auk readers affected by

exotic species? Those of us who are ﬁeld ecologists

are working with bird study species whose ecology

is very likely inﬂuenced in some way by invading

plants, animals, and microbes, including pathogens.

The impact of exotic species on the systems we study

may be subtle or dramatic but, in any case, it would

be unwise simply to assume that we don’t need to

take into consideration the presence of alien species

in our ﬁeld research. For example, if one ﬁnds re-

duced nesting success, is it due to competition with

an exotic species for a nest site? Or, is it due to par-

asitism by Brown-headed Cowbirds (Molothrus ater)?

Similarly, are high nest-predation rates the result of

an introduced predator? Is reproductive success low

because the feeding rate to nestlings is low, perhaps

as a result of competition for food with an exotic spe-

cies? Maybe an introduced pathogen is reducing

food availability or directly affecting nestling health.

And on and on.

The intriguing result of reading Cox’s book is that

one begins to think about such questions. Cox pro-

vides so many interesting case histories about such

a variety of habitats that it is inevitable that the read-

er interested in avian ecology will ponder such ques-

tions. Having said that, there is relatively little in the

book that directly addresses birds, an exception be-

ing the treatment of avian introductions into Hawaii

(with respect to bird introductions, the most invaded

island archipelago in the world). The few bird ex-

amples given by Cox include the possible negative

inﬂuence of introduced predatory crabs on native in-

vertebrates and, thus, on Paciﬁc coast shorebird pop-

ulations (p. 55), the long-term impact of Dutch elm

disease on Eastern U.S. forest-birds communities (p.

100), the disturbance of avian breeding habitats in

southern Florida by the spread of the shrub known

as Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) (p. 115),

the consequences for native bird species as a result

of exotic plants in grassland and riparian habitats

(pp. 136, 148, 155), and the sad history of introduced

game bird species throughout the U.S. (p. 200).

Should an avian ecologist buy this book? Let me

answer by saying that an avian ecologist should read

this book and request that your university library

purchase a copy. Cox’s treatments of species inva-

sions in the habitats of North America are so infor-

mative that I think any ﬁeld biologist working in one

of these habitats would likely beneﬁt from reading

that habitat’s treatment. Even if birds are discussed

peripherally in some of those cases, the habitat sum-

maries lead one to question in what ways one’s study

species might be inﬂuenced by exotic invaders. Cer-

tainly, for anyone who teaches a conservation biolo-

gy course as I do, this book is essential reading. Even

if one simply prepares a lecture or two on introduced

species for another course, Cox’s book clearly pre-

sents a wide variety of case histories to enliven a lec-

ture. Without doubt, as I update my lectures on alien

species, I will do so with Cox’s book at my side.—

ANDALL

REITWISCH

, Department of Biology, Univer-

sity of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio 45469-2320, USA.

The Auk 118(1):279–280, 2001

Physiological Diversity and Its Ecological Impli-

cations.—John I. Spicer and Kevin J. Gaston. 1999.

Blackwell Science Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom.

x 1 241 pp. 99 text ﬁgures. ISBN 0-632-05452-2. Pa-

per, $59.95.—Ecological physiology occupies the in-

terface of two major disciplines within biology and,

therefore, can offer integrative views of organisms

that combine the insights and context of ecology

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024

280 [Auk, Vol. 118Reviews

with the analytical rigor of the best traditions of

mechanistic physiology. Within the last decade, how-

ever, the status and preferred directions for research

within ecophysiology have been the subject of sub-

stantial debate. Some, for example, argue that this

discipline has essentially answered all of its initial,

large-scale questions of how animals function in

their natural environments and how they are adapt-

ed to them evolutionarily (e.g. Bennett 1987). Others

have questioned this disciplinary hubris and have

been impressed that we may well know much less

than is commonly perceived. A single example, with

apologies to my ornithological colleagues, is the

physiological ecology of small mammals occupying

hot deserts. Here, it is clear that many of the most

familiar generalizations accepted in textbooks and

taught to generations of students are misleading

(Walsberg 2000).

Although many have called for new perspectives

on ecological physiology, few have provided them in

the exemplary fashion of Spicer and Gaston’s Physi-

ological Diversity and its Ecological Implications. This

book provides a broad overview of variation in a host

of ecologically relevant aspects of physiology (e.g.

energy relations, temperature tolerance and regula-

tion, water relations, ionic relations). Spicer and Gas-

ton’s essential thesis is that such variation has been

largely ignored for too long and that understanding

the nature, origins, and consequences of diversity in

physiological systems is critical to understanding

ecological physiology. Our lack of attention to phys-

iological diversity has had major consequences. A

salient example is the difﬁculty that such ignorance

imposes upon understanding the evolution of phys-

iological traits. Between two populations occupying

contrasting habitats, for example, differences in

physiological performance may be derived from ge-

netic differences, or from acclimation, or from on-

togenetic effects induced by growth and develop-

ment in differing environments. If acclimation and

ontogenetic effects are of major importance, then dif-

ferences in physiological performance may well be

buffered from effects of natural selection. Under-

standing the relative contributions of these alterna-

tive sources of variation is clearly vital to under-

standing the role of natural selection as well as the

innate physiological lability of individuals.

Spicer and Gaston explore physiological diversity

from several points of view. The book is organized

following hierarchical levels of biological organiza-

tion. That is, they ﬁrst consider variation with time

in an individual (including acclimation and ontoge-

ny), then progressively explore variation between in-

dividuals, between populations, and between spe-

cies. Within each hierarchy, they examine the

patterns and structure of physiological diversity, its

mechanistic bases, and notable weaknesses in our

understanding.

I was particularly struck by three overall features

of this book. First, it is broad in its taxonomic cov-

erage. The examples discussed, which are myriad,

cover a wide set of invertebrate and vertebrate ani-

mals. Second, the authors have provided useful and

nondogmatic discussions of a variety of sometimes

contentious issues such as the ‘‘beneﬁcial acclima-

tion hypothesis’’ and the importance of accounting

for phylogenetic relatedness in physiological studies

(‘‘phylogenetically correct physiology’’). Finally,

throughout this book, Spicer and Gaston have taken

care to explicitly identify important and inadequate-

ly understood questions in some detail. The book

ends with a two-page list of critical questions that

need to be addressed related to ecophysiological

diversity.

The mechanics of the book also meet high profes-

sional standards. It is very well written, well illus-

trated, and replete with references and examples

from both the older as well as recent (up to 1998)

literature.

In summary, Physiological Diversity and its Ecologi-

cal Implications effectively develops a valuable new

perspective within ecological physiology. This book

deserves to be read by all in the discipline, including

graduate students as well as established research-

ers.—G

LENN

E. W

ALSBERG

, Department of Biology, Ar-

izona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85827-1501,

USA.

ITERATURE

ITED

ENNETT

, A. F. 1987. The accomplishments of ecolog-

ical physiology. Pages 1–8 in New Directions in

Ecological Physiology (M. E. Feder, A. F. Ben-

nett, W. W. Burggren, and R. B. Huey, Eds.).

Cambridge University Press, New York.

ALSBERG

, G. E. 2000. Small mammals in hot de-

serts: Some generalizations revisited. BioScience

50:109–122.

Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/The-Auk on 26 Aug 2024