'Yet another county avifauna!' This tweet from earlier in the year was not from a cash-strapped birder but from a bookseller. Not what you might have expected from someone earning a living from selling books. Does it say something about where we have got to - or more importantly where we should be going - with such works? When I started birdwatching, in the long-distant past, there were already many county avifaunas available, although most had been published years before and were limited to a narrative account of each species - and many counties did not even have one. However, unless you were fortunate enough to have a local county bird club that produced a bird report, those early county avifaunas were the only source of information on what species occurred in your area, and where and when you might find them. The source of information was invariably limited to the personal correspondents of the author and, understandably, a high proportion of the records referred to birds shot. Then, in 1954, Eric Gillham and Dick Homes wrote The Birds of the North Kent Marshes, which broke completely new ground. It described in some detail the physical environment of the area and put the birds into the context of where they lived. It was also based on extensive field observations by the authors as well as their correspondents. That model has, until recently, remained essentially unchanged, although the introductory chapters now often include a range of other topics, such as the history of birding in the county concerned and of the contribution of leading observers. The source information has also increased greatly with many county or regional bird clubs producing comprehensive annual reports, based on ever-expanding databases. 
Are we now on the cusp of another big step-change? Has the publication of Bird Atlas 2007-11, and the recent appearance online (on MapStore) of all the maps included in each of the BTO's published atlases, signalled a sea-change in the approach to recording our birdlife? In recent months, a clutch of new publications has appeared that draws on the data collected for Bird Atlas 2007-11. Some are simply atlases, of which a number are published only online, while others are complete avifaunas incorporating the atlas work. But there are other developments too, in terms of gathering the data which are the raw material of all avifaunas. Apart from the now well-established bird information sites, there are a plethora of other information sources on the web, although many of these are transitory and it is difficult to capture the information in a consistent and comprehensive manner. Many are also focused primarily on rarities. Quite different is BirdTrack, developed by the BTO and its partners, which can be used to collect data on all species, anywhere in the country. This is an extremely powerful tool, not least because once the data are collected and uploaded they are secure and available for consultation and analysis. Such volumes of data demand, or at least justify, sophisticated analyses. While the availability of data-handling skills is increasing rapidly, managing such a volume of information currently presents a major challenge to county organisations if they are to make the best use of that information and present it in an appealing and relevant manner. Some counties are taking significant steps forward, in one case publishing (very cheaply) a disc of all the maps that were subsequently included in the (much more expensive) county avifauna. Is the next logical step the regular updating of the county maps as each year's records are received and verified, and making those maps available online? That might be a logical next step, but it raises all sorts of questions about resources, most importantly the difficulty of achieving full coverage on a continuing basis. There are also obvious questions about technologies and the content of maps, and so on. In fact the more you think about it, the more issues you identify that need to be resolved. And even if, or perhaps when, they are resolved, does it make any sense for each county to plough its own furrow? Plainly not. It would be both impracticable and a waste of resources for each county to develop its own protocols, which inevitably would differ to some degree from county to county. Does the BTO have a role to play here in helping to develop templates that can be used by individual societies? Atlases are only one tool for presenting information. Published avifaunas deal with each species' history and current status in the county and for some species individual records are often cited. Production of such a work nowadays requires a group of dedicated people and a period of several years of hard and well-organised effort. Upon publication, everyone involved heaves a huge sigh of relief and the expectation is that nothing further is required for some years until there are sufficient changes in the avifauna to demand a new work. The effort then starts all over again. But surely technology now provides us with a more efficient model for presenting information about a county's avifauna in a timely fashion. In most counties or regions, a similar but less demanding effort is undertaken every year to produce a bird report. It is these and atlases that are the essential building blocks of an avifauna. If an avifauna was published online, is there any reason why species' accounts should not also be updated and published online? It would be impracticable and unnecessary to do so annually, but updating one group of species at a time as circumstances demanded would surely be both practical, and preferable to waiting another decade or two for the next published book. These ideas can be developed further. A good number of bird reports contain papers, many of a very high standard, reviewing aspects of the county's birdlife. These too could be available online, for access in whatever way the county decides to make its information available (by subscription or otherwise), just as many society newsletters already are. Once again, though, it would hardly be the best use of relatively scarce IT skills for each county to develop its own model. Could the BTO play a part here too? It would require specialist knowledge and experience and financial resources, and there would be a legion of decisions to be taken, so the effort would be very considerable. Even if it were achievable, would it be worthwhile? Making accurate data about our avifauna available in a timely fashion is a top priority if we are to do our best to ensure that bird populations are not depleted further, so surely it is worth a serious review, perhaps initially through a joint working party involving the BTO, the RSPB and interested county societies. It may be different from fulfilling the desire of birdwatchers to have a record of the birds in their home area, but it does not make it any less justifiable. There is, however, one other, quite different aspect. People have always liked books and still take pleasure in simply browsing through a nicely produced work, dipping in here and there. For many, browsing on a screen is simply not comparable, even if they are hap py to read a novel on a tablet. That debate has been going on for more than a decade and in the meantime books, especially reference books, continue to appear at a healthy rate. Yet perhaps it is now time to take the plunge and put some serious effort into investigating how the collection and presentation of bird data in this country should develop? It might take a decade to achieve a coherent and practicable approach, which is applicable to all counties, but it is surely a subject worthy of serious attention. Peter Oliver
