Quizzes make great learning tools, and I’ve created a number of short bird identification and birding skills quizzes on this website. All are multiple choice, and each one only takes a minute or two to complete.

Below are lists of the five most recent quizzes in each of several different categories. To see a complete list of quizzes in each category click the link under that heading. In most cases there is no logical order to the quizzes, but some refer to, or build on, previous quizzes, and in those cases it can be helpful to go through them in order. On the pages listing all quizzes the listings begin with the oldest at the top and end with most recent at the bottom, so that you can easily follow through the list.

See the **list of all quizzes in all categories**

## Five recent quizzes on estimating numbers

See the **list of all quizzes on estimating numbers**

- Quiz on estimating numbers – flocks in flight
- Quiz 52: More numbers
- Quiz 51: Estimating Numbers
- Quiz 49: Estimating numbers of birds
- Quiz 47 – More estimating numbers

## Five recent quizzes on bird topography

See the **list of all quizzes on bird topography**

- Quiz on Belizean Birds and Greater Coverts
- Quiz 54: Head patterns
- Quiz 50: Bird topography – upperside
- Quiz 42: More topography of the upperparts
- Quiz 40: Feather topography of the upperparts

G W GoveEstimating numbers – I note that most of your estimates are round numbers. I read in reports of birds numbers like 723 CAGO or 143 Scaup (diving birds). I asked someone if they estimated 500 CAGO and then later saw 3 more, how many did they see and the person answered 503 even tho the 500 is +/- 50 or +/- 10. I also don’t see how people can give an “exact” number of diving or sleeping (but moving) ducks or flying flocks of birds. I guess birders don’t understand significant figures. I guess an odd number looks more believable. Do you think birders should round off their reports to the nearest 5 or 10 or whatever depending on the size of the number?

David SibleyThat’s a good point and something that doesn’t get much attention. I agree that it seems silly to report a total of 503 geese by combining an estimate of 500 with a separate group of 3, but as long as we all understand that it’s not an exact number, just the sum of our estimates, I think that’s OK. On the personal side there is the desire to record the three “bonus” birds seen separately and not just merge them into the rough estimate of the big flock. And I think there’s a valid argument for adding all of the numbers, combining estimates and counts. If we think of the estimate as 500 +/- 50, then we should think of the sum as 503 +/- 50. In reality the range of possible error is much larger, according to research, so it should really be more like 503 +/- 200. Those three extra birds are not significant either way, but it feels good to give them some credit, and simpler to just add everything to the total.