Agree with the comment on the trunk and bark illustrations. This is one area where I think properly selected photographs or perhaps line drawings would do a better job. -Andrew
[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] -- 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]
