Tree Indentification

[cgittins]

What is a good book for indentifing trees in the field.
Thanks
Charlie

[JimBuis]

I have a copy of Identifying Wood by R. Bruce Hoadley.  I don't like it and wish I had not bought it.  It would probably make a reasonable college textbook, but is useless as a ready reference to simply identify trees or wood.  I will be watching this thread to see what recommendations folks have to make.

Good luck,
Jim

[Ron Scott]

Other than the various college Forestry dendrology books, you might try the National Audubon Society Field Guide to Trees, Eastern Region of North America.

[Ed]

I have an excellent book on Michigan trees, it's 

Trees of Michigan: Field guide     By Stan Tekiela

It's available at Borders or thru Amazon.

Pocket sized with all color pics, shows the bark, leaves & friut.

Ed

[SwampDonkey]

Special_ed has a good idea, if you can get ahold of a decent local dendro book. Some states/provinces have them and others you'll be well off with Audubons, although the glossy pictures made it difficult to id by some leaf characteristics other than shape. Buds aren't shown. (Ok, this twig came from a maple, but which spc?) Hard to find one showing the fruit/seeds of trees. You'll usually get one showing leave shape, silloette, bark and maybe flower color. But, something is always missing. You can also search the second thread in the 'Tree and Plant ID' board if your trying to id a tree in winter. ;)

[dutchman]

I like the  "Peterson Field Guide Eastern Trees" George A Petrides sponsored
by the National Audubon Society, Pub. by Houghton Mifflin.
"Illustrated Guide to Trees and Shrubs " A handbook of the Woody Plants of Northeastern
U.S. and adjacent Canada, Arthur Harmount Graves , Dover Pub.
Perfer to carry Petersons, more content.

[jon12345]

I agree that the audobon book can be difficult.  I liked my harlow and harrar's dendrology book from college, even though it is a little big to be a field book.  Another helpful thing when trying to figure out what kind of tree you are looking at is to know the different terms used for leaf shape, characteristics and arrangement.

As mentioned in a previous post, I think getting a regional book would be a great idea if you want a photo-guide, the pictures in the audobon book looked nothing like the trees we have here or, maybe I had just flipped to the ornamental section  :D

[SwampDonkey]

Peterson's is actually better that Audubons glossy version because of the drawings. I'll take a good book with detailed drawings with descriptions over poor photos with good descriptions any day of the week. Photos can be good, but if they aren't up close to the subject and in focus to see the fine stuff of life, then it's got limited uses. ;) Everyone remember the 'balsam fir' thread where Joan got a little frustrated with her tree books? This thread reminds me of that a little. The question gets asked alot about what tree ID book to use, if you use the forum search you get quite a few good answers. Sometimes if you use the forum for what it contains the answer to tree ID is right there. Threads can be printed as well. ;)

[Ron Scott]

It's often good to have more than one "good" book for comparison use on some ID's. It's hard to recommend a single best one. ;)

[SwampDonkey]

Had to edit my first post in here, didn't realize what Board I was in. ;)

[cgittins]

Thanks everyone for the help.
Will start with Special Ed advice.
Again thanks
Charlie

[Okrafarmer]

Bringing back an old thread rather than starting a new one. I have Peterson's Field Guide and use it constantly. I like it better than any other guide I have seen. Having said that, it does, of course, have some shortcomings, and never has as much info as I would like to have for any given species. But it is better than anything else I have seen that covers such a broad range of species. I have both the Eastern and Western, though the Western is more for academic purposes for me since I don't live there.

I would like to discuss some of the content of these books with people who may have questions or answers about some of the things written in them. If this is the wrong place to do such a thread, let me know.

I have the "First Edition, Expanded" of PFG,ET. The 1998 printing, for those of you who would like to match page numbers with me.

My first question is about page 163. There is a photo of pine cones from four different yellow pines. The caption of the photo indicates, if I understand correctly, that shortleaf pine has the largest cone of the four. However, the text of shortleaf pine  (p. 169) says cones are 1.5-3" long, but text of longleaf (p. 162) says its cones are 6-10". So-- is the caption for the photo wrong? Anybody know what the proper caption should be?

[SwampDonkey]

the text of shortleaf pine  (p. 169) says cones are 1.5-3" long, but text of longleaf (p. 162) says its cones are 6-10". So-- is the caption for the photo wrong? Anybody know what the proper caption should be?

I have an older edition (1972) and it shows Longleaf with the longest, then loblolly, mountain then shortleaf. In my book they break them out by # of needles. Pages 34-35. My edition doesn't have much on softwoods.

Since I'm in Canada I use Native trees of Canada because of the common names we use can be different and the maps are more accurate. There are some species like butternut that follow the main rivers and not all over. Others would show a map with butternut everywhere in the province. Then we have native bur oaks, and some books don't show it on the map for NB. In many books the distribution written about is confusing and one is left wondering if the tree is native to your province or state since it's in between point A and B. Many times, a species like butternut actually skips long distances.

[Okrafarmer]

My cousin in Maine gave me a great book on the species found in Maine. Maybe there is one I can find for South Carolina. We probably have over 200 species native to the state-- over 120 native to my area. Some like Slash Pine, Live Oak, and Dwarf Palmetto, are native farther down the state but not here. But sometimes people plant them up here and they do ok. The ornamentals are so numerous as to drive you crazy, too.

Peterson's does tell the number of needles per species, so that's good. They are more thorough than anything else I've ever seen that covers such a broad area of land. I'm sure the area maps are inaccurate, some more than others, and especially in the less populated parts of Canada. I do find trees here  in my area sometimes that are "out of range" by 50-100 miles, and I end up wondering if the book is just wrong, or if people planted them there.

[SwampDonkey]

In my area of NB we have more tree species than any other place in the Canadian Maritimes. Butternut, basswood, and bur oak are exclusive. Thing to remember is glaciation isolated populations. Trees can't walk. That's not to imply that it happened rapidly, but if there is a mile of ice removing all the soil as is moves and everything is frozen for awhile......well you get the picture.

[Okrafarmer]

In the US, Florida and California are places where you can find many trees you find nowhere else in the US. And probably Hawaii, too of course. I am blessed to live in an area with many many species. Finding and identifying new ones is fun and exciting. I just get frustrated with the books sometimes.

[WDH]

Okra,

This is by far the best tree ID guide for your area.  It is excellent. If you could only have one book, this would be it.

http://www.amazon.com/Native-Trees-Southeast-Identification-Guide/dp/0881928283