I.D. Books

[TexasTimbers]

I typed "best tree identification books" in the search and got no response but I can't imagine I'm the first to ask this. I probably didn't do something right. Anyway, I know there probably isn't a single "best" tree i.d. book especially since it's a fairly regional thing but I'd like to know what are some of the books y'all have and wahtyou think about them.
Below is what I have and what I think. I got to talking about it with Cedarman's son Aaron last weekend, who has a forestry degree and he said he liked the textbook he had in school, but couldn't remember the name of it. Talking to him I figure the best (or at least quickest) way to learn is to go out in the field as often as possible with someone who knows the local trees and take books that cover that region. That was part of his cirriculum of course. That got me to thinking that minus this resource the best aly. way is to take the books into the forest. But I want to know what  the "best" books are. I'm looking for suggestions. Here's what i have now:

National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Trees; Eastern Region Elbert L Little
I like this the best probably. This book is made up of "Part I" and "Part II". In "Part I" it has nice photos of the bark, leaves, and branches. In "Part II" there are small sketches of the trees themselves (versus pictures which of course would be better) and a description of the species etc.

Trees of North Texas Robert A. Vines
This book has drawings and sketches of a leaf-bearing branch from each of the trees covered. I don't care for this book very much as I have a heckuva time trying to identify trees with it.

Trees of Texas; An Easy Guide to Leaf Identification Stahl & McElvaney
This book has excellent photos of leaves and I like the way it's laid out. It divides Texas up into 10 regions and gives little quips of history and interesting facts. It's glaring downfall is that it's worthless during the months that the trees aren't wearing clothes. But I guess it says that on the cover.

The Tree Identification Book. Symonds
I bought this book because of a rave review I read about it. It would be an excellent book if it was in color as opposed to black and white photos but after all it was published in 1958 so I can't hold that against it. As far as how this book is arranged and supposed to be ised by the wannabe I.D.er, I won't even try to explain it, but I don't like it. Maybe I just need more practice using it so the jury is still out. It was my latest purchase. There is also a lot of trees not in the book that we have here in North Texas, but this doesn't claim to be a regional book either.

The Illustrated Book of Trees. Grimm
There's a ton of information in this thick tome, but no photos and not much help as a field guide in my view. Certainly not worthless as an I.D. Book, but it would make a great companion aid to a dedicated field I.D. book.

So thosea re the only ones I have,and I don't want to buy any other ones unless I get a review from one of y'all. Especially someone in my general area of the planet.
Texas Ranger I hope you'll see this and weigh in. Seems like you are a prime candidate to give me an idea or two, but of course anything offered will be more than i know now.
If this has already been covered please forgive and maybe point me to the thread, as I did do a search.

[SwampDonkey]

I find those color pictures of the audubon ilk are good to see leaf shape, bark color and flowers. But, you don't get to see 'in close' to discover for instance this species of birch have bud scales that persist on the twig in the growing season, where this one has pubescence on it's petiole. They probably don't show a cone-like catkin on the yellow birch, where as the grey birch has an elongated single catkin. But, I find a book with a combination of twig color and texture, bud scales, and leaf shape and leaf characteristics (pubescense, leaf margins, oil glands) as well as flowers, is good to have. Also, a book with silouttes of the different species is useful. For this I rely on Pederson's Field Guides and if you have a book like 'Overwintering Twigs and Buds of Woody Shrubs and Trees' it will, or should, have drawings which are more valueable than color photos. You can tell alot about tree species just by buds alone.

[sprucebunny]

https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=8083.0

This is the last time we talked about it ;D

[Furby]

Not a book, but I like this way.  ;D
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=15024.0

[jon12345]

when I took dendrology in college we used harlow & harrar's, not sure of the exact name but it seemed like a pretty good book (not really a field i.d. though).  The way I learned trees was to go find the tree and then compare it to the description in the book.  It was a lot easier to learn the names and characteristics while actually lookin at the tree.  Another way is to take notes, if u notice something on every tree of a species you see, and it isn't mentioned in the book - write it in there.

[SwampDonkey]

when I took dendrology in college we used harlow & harrar's, not sure of the exact name but it seemed like a pretty good book (not really a field i.d. though).  The way I learned trees was to go find the tree and then compare it to the description in the book.  It was a lot easier to learn the names and characteristics while actually lookin at the tree.  Another way is to take notes, if u notice something on every tree of a species you see, and it isn't mentioned in the book - write it in there.

'Textbook of Dendrology', but you also took weekly laboratories where you looked at minute properties to id trees, as well as make extensive notes. You also were likely to take a course dedicated to the development and structure of trees where you used the microscope and made sketches. All that hands work was very useful. Also, if your dad or grandpa tought you the  macroscopic properties of trees before you went to college that didn't hurt either. ;D

I remember the prof thinking he was going to be cocky one after noon as he took a leaf from a maple tree and said what species. Well it looked like sugar maple, but I knew something was up because of the milk white sap in the vascular bundles oozing out. I figured it was Norway, but didn't speak. There was a fellow ahead of the group that shouted out his answer as soon as the question was posed and called it sugar maple. He crashed and burned. ;D He only went by the leaf shape. I've been caught sometimes on ID, nobody's perfect. ;) Not only did we have to learn native species to NB, but we had to learn western species and species south of the border. Sometimes in the case of oaks and hictory we id'ed by species groupings and not the specific species.

[jon12345]

leaf shape, leaf arrangements, needle length, smell, pubescence, buds....

looking at the cells under magnification didnt come til later... in sawmill.

lets just say, its easier to remember leaves and twigs than it is cells   :D

also did out west and down south trees using lab samples.  Oaks were divided into red oak and white oak.

One time my silvi prof thought it would be a good idea to make me  tell the class the characteristics of american beech because I was 'distracted' by chewin on some twigs - that were still attached to the tree   :

[SwampDonkey]

looking at the cells under magnification didnt come til later... in sawmill.

lets just say, its easier to remember leaves and twigs than it is cells   :D

hmm that was Wood Technology (microcope-cells) and followed up by Forest Products (sawmill, pulp and paper, wood polymers, biofuel).

But you used a microscope to look at a tree development from a seed to a seedling (radical development and embyro, cotyledons) ;) Umm.... did you get fooled by the haircap moss and call it a spruce? ;D

Yeah I agree about the cells. But sometimes the microscope or 10x lens was used to see hairs, bud scales, oil glands and not cells. ;)

Textbook of Dendro has excellent descriptions but it's better to be able to see the little details sometimes.

[TexasTimbers]

Geez y'all are way over my head, but I appreciate all the information. I really didn't realize how involved IDing trees would be. Thought it was going to be cut and dry; wanting to learn only out of necessity but I can see this might be fun (and frustrating at the same time).
I saw two trees in the woods (good place for 'em heh) Tue. that I would have sworn were black locust, but when I got back to the truck the book showed it to be honey locust according to the thorns, but the bark didn't even come close to looking like honey, black, or water locust.  It had the black locust looking leaves though.
Once I got back to the truck the book said a dead giveaway on the black locust was the white flowers, but I don;'t remember seeing any flowers. Probably to late in the year.
The bark was unlike anything I've seen. Thick, smoothish, with "openings" in the bark like someone punched through from the inside with a fist.
I need to take my camera next time I go in.

[Furby]

I saw two trees in the woods (good place for 'em heh)

Must be a small "woods" to only have two trees. ;)

[TexasTimbers]

 :D :D :D

Yeah, The County Extension Agent said I could only cut down every third one on account of the recent anti clear-cutting laws that were passed ;D

[SwampDonkey]

:D :D :D

Yeah, The County Extension Agent said I could only cut down every third one on account of the recent anti clear-cutting laws that were passed ;D

Where does the count start from, which tree is no 1 and no 2? ;D :D

[TexasTimbers]

SD,


Things sure do change over time don't they. this is the same piece of property that I "discovered" all this boxelder and walnut. i was walking right past walnuts and didn't have a clue.
I wonder how many times that has hapened to me. I have gone in and taked entire stands of ERC and never paid any mind at all to most of the hardwoods unless I recognized them (and my repetoire is small).

Quartlow, I couldn't find the exact thread where I posted a photo of the box elder leaves but I made a post entitled "What is this one?" in February which would have been not long before I took those honey locust. So somewhere in late Feb - early March I'm guessing is when I cut those first boxelders and they were quite red.

[solodan]

Kevjay, go here and check out
The Finders Series of Field Guides

My tree ID was pretty good before I started using the Pacific Coast Tree Finder, but after carrying this guide in the field for a few months, I got a much better grip on things. These guides are pocket sized an use a dichotomous key to help decide which tree you are trying to identify. Dichotomous keys are fun to use too. It looks like they have both a tree finder and a winter tree finder for states east of the Rockies. I also have the berry finder for my area which was fun to get because I realized how many tasty edible berries I had walked right by for years. 8)