Animal Tracks & Signs Reprint

[hachidori]

Anyone got this book by Preben Bang & Preben Dahlstrom???? The reprint with Ray Mears on the cover? I picked it up (the re-issue) today in waterstones and I'm a little confused about something. (and let me ensure you all first that I'm not just nit-picking here, but genuinely want to know if anyone else has noticed a couple of things wrong...)

Now, I'm a mammal ecologist and I'm pretty familiar with feeding signs of rodents and also mammal footprints, and general identification...

Someone please look on page 67 for me at the photo in the centre at the bottom of the page. This says it is a fox print. I am familiar with the technique of putting a line, or an "x" through a track to determine if it is a fox or dog. They mention it above, on the very same page, but the one in the photo doesn't seem to fall in line with my (or their) criteria for a fox track. Anyone see the same thing?

On page 53, there are the tracks of a field vole jumping in the snow. (note marks from the "long tail" between the tracks... ) except field voles have particularly short tails. Could this be a bank vole track and it is just a typo??

Now turn to page 138, where there is a photo of a hazelnut eaten by a yellow-necked mouse / wood mouse on the "left" and a bank vole on the "right". I'm pretty sure these are backwards, again, according to both my experience and their text... Mice leave marks all over the outside of the edge of the hole, whereas voles are quite neat and tidy. The photos are backwards...

Don't get me wrong, I particulalry like this book, and I think it is very comprehensive. But am I going nuts or are there a few mis-prints??

(sorry, Mr Bang, its a lovley book - I'm not trying to start tearing up this fantastic piece of work, but I'm just genuinely a bit confused...)

Help, please!

[Alan]

I maybe wrong, but I think this book, and some of the series in fact, are translated from Danish/Swedish. This may account for the errors!

By the way, welcome to WAB hachidori

[hachidori]

Thanks! I've been reading for a while, but don't post very often!

Maybe you are right about the translation!

[henrya]

I only have the original, and some things (including the page numbers) are different

Quote
Someone please look on page 67 for me at the photo in the centre at the bottom of the page. This says it is a fox print. I am familiar with the technique of putting a line, or an "x" through a track to determine if it is a fox or dog. They mention it above, on the very same page, but the one in the photo doesn't seem to fall in line with my (or their) criteria for a fox track. Anyone see the same thing?
Endquote

I can see what you mean - it may be due to the fact the the print is in soft mud and the pad prints have spread. It does seem quite a narrow (and therefore foxlike) track but not the best one to use as an illustration.

Quote
On page 53, there are the tracks of a field vole jumping in the snow. (note marks from the "long tail" between the tracks... ) except field voles have particularly short tails. Could this be a bank vole track and it is just a typo??
Endquote

Don't think I have the same picture - in mine it shows a "splat" where the vole has jumped down from a tree and two pairs of marks off to the left where the animal has jumped away, and it's captioned bank vole.

Quote
Now turn to page 138, where there is a photo of a hazelnut eaten by a yellow-necked mouse / wood mouse on the "left" and a bank vole on the "right". I'm pretty sure these are backwards, again, according to both my experience and their text... Mice leave marks all over the outside of the edge of the hole, whereas voles are quite neat and tidy. The photos are backwards...
Endquote

No photogs of nuts - just paintings which look correctly captioned to me.

henrya

[clairey]

Hi there, I haven't been about for a while so just catching up. I've got the silver version of this book and have to agree with all the points you made hachidori, especially the field-vole one where it even says to note the marks from the long tail! i think this must just be a typo. but I have to say that i do love this book and on the whole i've found it very useful, but still important to point out little errors!