at least their bird guide is better than most others, showing differences with age and season, and sometimes regional differences...
PJ On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:21 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > ENTS, > > I just got The Sibley Guide to Trees that everybody has been raving about. > My initial impression is that parts of it are good and parts are definitely > not. Here is my first grading pass. > > Species Coverage: Okay for my purposes. Others Ents like Steve Galehouse > are much better judges of coverage. I give an A-. > > Leaf Drawings: So far, I think pretty good. I give an A-. > > Flowers and Fruits: Okay. I give a B. > > Trunk and Bark: Not so good. I give a C+ > > Tree Profiles: Not good. Erratic coverage. I give a D+ > > Range Maps: Thumbnail presentations: I give a C- > > Dimension Data: I didn't expect the tree dimension information to be good. > Apparently Sibley didn't have a clue as to which sources of information are > reliable and which ones aren't. I think he pulled most of his numbers from > the National Register of Big Trees plus miscellaneous sources. He obviously > didn't do much serious research, so on tree dimensions he earns an F. > > Organization and Layout: Attractive. I give a B+ > > Well that's it for now. I don't minimize the mountain of work required to > produce such an identification guide. Has the guide raised any bars? No, not > from what I'm looking at. > > Bob > > -- > Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org > Send email to [email protected] > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en > To unsubscribe send email to > [email protected]<entstrees%[email protected]> > -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
