ORNITHOLOGICAL LITERATURE 
857 
has developed a reputation as a stickler for the 
details about Panamanian bird distributions, and 
this book represents the fruits of his attention to 
detail, Robert Dean is a gifted bird artist who 
balances attention to species-specific differences 
between closely-related taxa while depicting birds 
as vibrant and life-like, without resorting to the 
baroque. Not only do Dean's birds have depth, 
they are usually posed correctly for the species, 
which can be a significant aid in proper 
identification (but 1 am not sure I have ever seen 
a female Great Antshrike ( Taraba major ] on the 
ground, page 203). The critical part in each of 
Angehr’s species descriptions is the text in bold, 
which points out key phenotypic characters or 
geographical restrictions for a given species. The 
text might stray a half dozen or so words beyond 
the minimum for some species, but I doubt many 
readers will quibble. 
The range maps really drive home the biogeo¬ 
graphic complexities of diminutive Panama, and it 
is easy to overlook the considerable amount of 
information they convey. The maps use three 
colors: purple for residents, blue for boreal 
migrants, and red for austral migrants with 
crosshatching used to convey a pattern of erratic 
visitation rather than year after year site fidelity ol 
non-breeding visitors. This scheme just works and 
the new user quickly assimilates this scheme 
without having to refer to a key or guide. It is 
important to note the range maps are scaled, 
depending on how widely distributed the species 
■s in Panama. Care was taken to make sure the 
reader does not get disoriented when zoomed into 
1 small region in Panama. 
One caution for the reader is that many ol the 
range maps likely overstate the continuity of 
many species ranges between the extremes ol 
■heir distribution. The most egregious example is 
■he Orange-billed Sparrow {Arrenwn aurantiiros- 
Iris), which has been found in isolated patches of 
humid woodland habitats along the Pacific 
lowlands of Panama, but cannot be found in most 
°f this arid and savanna-like region despite the 
range map on page 360. Even some published 
distributional gaps, such as that ol the Bay Wren 
(Cantarchilus \ Thryothorns] nigricapillus) east of 
Panama City (Gonzalez el al. 2003. Condor), arc 
missing from Angehr and Dean s range maps. 
These details are unlikely to affect most users in 
■he field, but could be corrected to meet the 
standards of excellence displayed elsewhere in the 
hook. 
Dean previously illustrated Zona Tropical/ 
Cornell University’s The Birds of Costa Rica: a 
Guide (Garrigues and Dean 2007). and many of 
the illustrations in the Panama guide arc borrowed 
from that earlier effort. However, perhaps as 
many as a third of the widespread landbirds in 
Panama show racial variation between eastern and 
western Panama. The majority of these represent 
subtle differences in plumage coloration and size 
that would be difficult to appreciate in the field 
and irrelevant for a compact field guide. Perhaps 
one in five of these cases represents discrete 
differences in plumage that might confuse the 
traveling bird enthusiast. Dean and Angehr 
illustrate both eastern and western forms for 
several of these, such as the Bay Wren or the 
White-shouldered Tanager {Tachyphonus luctao- 
sus). However, often only the western form is 
illustrated, and the form occurring in central and 
eastern Panama is not. A small caption next to the 
illustration, in many of these cases, notes that it is 
the western form that is illustrated, along with a 
verbal description of the eastern form in the text. 
Nonetheless, there are too many instances where 
no illustration exists for a variant likely deserving 
specics-level status (the Blue-crowned Motmot 
complex, Momolus [momota] coeruliceps), for the 
form most likely to be observed in Panama (e.g.. 
Ruddy Foliage-gleaner. Automolus rubiginosus), 
or both (e.g.. Ochre-bellied Flycatcher, Mionectes 
oleagineus). 
One final frustration with the layout is a 
tendency for phenotypically similar birds to be 
spread across multiple pages. For example, 
flycatchers with kiskad ee-like plumages are 
spread across three pages in the book, while 
resident Catharus thrushes are split across two 
pages. Possibly 1 just can not let go of the ‘Field 
Guide 1.0' mentality, but I appreciate these birds 
all on the same page so that my eye can quickly 
pick out the discriminating field marks without 
having to leaf back and forth. Ironically, this isn’t 
as much of a problem in the similar, but svelter, 
Zona Tropical Costa Rica guide. The problem is 
not a lack of space on the figure pages: some 
figure pages have so much white space that the 
birds appear to be floating in mid air. Instead, the 
problem seems (o be due to excess white space on 
the text page. The Panama guide has what appears 
to be 1,5-line spacing between species accounts 
whereas the Costa Rica guide uses a solid line 
rather than excessive white space between species 
descriptions and has considerably less white space 
