Clinical, antiseptic and boring

Perhaps it's pointless to criticize a field guide for being frankly boring, rather than being an aesthetically pleasing experience. Still, we are spoiled with field guides in Sweden that actually are aesthetically pleasing. I'm referring, of course, to Lars Jonsson's books on birds, and the books on orchids and mushrooms illustrated by Bo Mossberg. Maybe that's why I was disappointed by Pierre Delforge's field guide to the orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. I mean, a book about *orchids* that make you yawn, or wish you were somewhere else entirely? But then, perhaps I'm unfair. After all, the point of this field guide is to identify orchids in the field, not necessarily to show them from their best side...

"Orchids of Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East" is a comprehensive field guide and reference work, covering over 500 species of wild orchids found in Europe, North Africa, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Jordan and the Sinai. All of Europe is covered, including Russia west of the Urals. So are the Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores. Most species are illustrated with photographs, both a photo showing the entire plant, and close ups on the flowers. (The Ophrys species are only illustrated with close ups.) Two rare species from Algeria are illustrated by colour drawings, presumably because no photos of them exist. Each species presentation contains a detailed description of the plant, information on its scientific name, habitat and approximate range. The most common pollinators of each species are also mentioned, as are hybrids and aberrant varieties. Identification keys are included. One negative is that no vernacular names are included, giving the guide as a somewhat "elitist", "professional botanists only" impression. I have to admit a strong dislike to such an approach. I therefore laughed when I saw that the vernacular name "lady's slipper" accidentally slipped into the section on that particular species. Ladies first, huh? A more "elitist" negative is that the world wide range of each species isn't given, only its range within the area covered by the book. Since "Orchids of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East" is also a reference work, this is a clear drawback.

How good this book is as a field guide, I honestly don't know. I'm quite lazy, and prefer watching orchids in botanical gardens! But yes, I'm sure it functions well as a reference for botanists, or perhaps advanced students of the subject. I was also struck by the wide diversity of the orchid family, even in such a "boring" area as the Western Palaearctic.

And yet, I somehow can't talk myself into liking this clinical, antiseptic and very professional work...