This should prove controversial! 
Thoughts on what makes a good guidebook; what makes good labelling.
My two all-time favourite guidebooks are:
Regents Park c.1964 - more of a text book than a guidebook but taught me an awful lot about the principles of taxonomy, which is a good starting point for any understanding of the natural world.
Edinburgh c.late 80s (I think) - combined descriptions of species (and the threats they faced) accompanied by outlines of how they were managed at Edinburgh. A good combination of species description together with what you would see on the day.
What don't I like? The guidebook which is basically "some colour photos of some ABC animals we may - or may not - have, captioned with Name; Scientific Name; Diet; Number of young; Gestation" or similar. Has anybody ever been inspired to a lifetime interest by a childhood discovery that the gestation length of species A is 76 days, but only 64 days for species B? Thought not ...
I'll turn to labelling in a separate post.
Thoughts on what makes a good guidebook; what makes good labelling.
My two all-time favourite guidebooks are:
Regents Park c.1964 - more of a text book than a guidebook but taught me an awful lot about the principles of taxonomy, which is a good starting point for any understanding of the natural world.
Edinburgh c.late 80s (I think) - combined descriptions of species (and the threats they faced) accompanied by outlines of how they were managed at Edinburgh. A good combination of species description together with what you would see on the day.
What don't I like? The guidebook which is basically "some colour photos of some ABC animals we may - or may not - have, captioned with Name; Scientific Name; Diet; Number of young; Gestation" or similar. Has anybody ever been inspired to a lifetime interest by a childhood discovery that the gestation length of species A is 76 days, but only 64 days for species B? Thought not ...
I'll turn to labelling in a separate post.
