Volume 123, Issue 3 (July 2006) The Auk
The Gyrfalcon reviewed by Thomas J. Cade Friends -- When a book review of a major book on a charasmatic raptor species includes a statement such as: "To summarize, this is a rather unfortunate book", and the reviewer is a world expert on the species written about, one has to wonder how such a book could be published as written, particularly by a major university press. This question alone makes reading this book review not only interesting, but important to all raptorphiles, all ornithologists and those who rely on published science as a means to an end for conservation, personal understanding of species' and their natural history, and those concerned about negative trends in the publication of works on natural history science. As background, when I heard a couple of years ago that a major new book on the gyrfalcon was in preparation, I became excited and knew that I would obtain the book. I would have been more excited if the book was being written by Dr. Tom Cade himself, because I consider Dr. Cade to be the preeminent expert on falcons of the world, with vast personal knowledge by Dr. Cade of gyrfalcons. Instead, the book was authored by senior author Eugene Potapov with assistance from Richard Sale, who I know relatively little about and have sparse knowledge of their qualifications to write a major book on this species. But I also trusted that the peer review process would pretty much assure that the book would be scientifically accurate, if not groundbreaking, and that the information in it would be reliable as a future reference in the significant details. I bought the book and looked briefly at it, but have not read it in detail. Then, fairly recently, I learned that Dr. Cade had written a review of the book for The Auk, and I could not wait to read Dr. Cade's review in order to see his appraisal of the new book I had purchased. Regarding Dr. Tom Cade, if he were a bird, I think he would probably be a gyrfalcon. He is a scholar, a field man, a great writer, holds enclopedic knowledge of science within his specialty, and apparently is a bit feisty, which is especially welcome in a person of his stature and achievement. If I were to be "chewed out" or criticized by someone, I would much rather it come from the best, a real world-class authority like Tom Cade than by someone of low stature, so I believe the authors of this book should take this review as professional, constructive criticism and not personally. In a nutshell, this review provides the expert opinion that the authors of the book under review were not major researchers of the species they wrote about, and thus their most valuable contribution by publication of the book was their review of the literature on the gyrfalcon, and especially so because the authors accessed Russian language literature and other non-English literature, often from sources that would be considered obscure for the typical English-language reader of this book. But, when the authors attempted to perform original analysis of aspects of gyrfalcon natural history, biology, systematics, etc., the reviewer felt that their analyses and arguments were weak and unpersuasive. Additionally, according to the reviewer, "the book was not well edited and contains many errors". All sorts of errors were detected by the reviewer and even quantified: "I found 260 errors and confusions in 280 pages of text and references". The review was not all negative, though. The reviewer described his own personal excitement at reading natural history accounts provided by the authors of this species, particularly in the Russian and Siberian range where the authors had access to literature accounts and perhaps personal experience that were obviously of great interest to the reviewer. The reviewer also expressed support for a position taken by the authors regarding the appropriate scientific name or the species, which all agreed should be changed from F. rusticolus to F. gyrfalco. A large part of the review dealt with efforts by the authors to analyze colors and color patterns of gyrfalcons and their significance. While the reviewer seemed to display an open mind towards the arguments and assessments of the authors, Dr. Cade concluded that the result of the authors analyses were more confusion, not less. Arguments that suggest novel explanations for such phenomena need to follow a rigorous logic that provides facts, addresses contradictions, explains controversies, and reaches appropriate conclusions. Arguments that provide opinions with some facts but lack of appropriate rigor lose their power and can result in confusion, not clarification. I believe this is the major problem that Dr. Cade dwelt on regarding this discussion. Since the discussion of colors and patterns formed a major part of this book, and were so flawed for the reasons described above, and were typical of overall flaws in the book, it was no surprise that the reviewer concluded by saying that "the inquiring reader is likely to be disappointed by lack of synthesis and summary of the many details presented, and the often difficult text must be read with care." But the question emerges, how could a book with these profound weaknesses be published, particularly in a situation where its publication authomatically places it in a role as a likely major reference to the natural history and biology of this species? What is wrong (if anything) with the peer review process, including the editing process which was specifically commented on by the reviewer? I will here state my own personal opinion based on repeated observation. It appears to me that peer review has often followed a process in which a certain profile of science is looked for in which formulaic science is sought for publication for its own sake. Data and data accuracy are often a secondary concern. Even study design seems to be of less concern to peer reviewers prior to publication as long as the scientific process seems based on formula, such as statistical analysis, genetic analysis, or specifically PCA (principal component analysis) as used by the authors of this book in reference to plumages of gyrfalcons. By comparison, recently a friend of mine told me in private conversation that his recent publication in a major ornithological journal of a paper on diet habits of a different falcon species were published, according to the editor of the journal in question, not because of the uniqueness of the data or relevance of the data, but because the editor was specifically interested in the specifics of the statistical analysis. The data in too many cases is less important than the process of analyzing it. In my view, when process takes priority over fact or truth, then false conclusions are more likely to be produced and accepted and published. Once published, bad information tends to be repeated and relied on by those unfamiliar with good information and a cycle of error is likely to be set in place. Thanks to the book review editor of The Auk for asking Dr. Tom Cade to write this review! Thanks to Dr. Cade for explaining in some detail his reasons for his disappointment. As owner of this book, I will be better able to approach it and understand its weaknesses while enjoying it strengths since I have this input from Dr. Cade. And I will take this opportunity to notify readers of this posting public that Dr. Cade's seminal work, 'The Falcons of the World" is out of print, but well worth owning, and I also believe it would be a great time for an update of that book in a new edition. Much additional research has been done worldwide on falcons since the original publication and I hope that Dr. Cade would consider revising and updating his important book. Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
