Barry,
It just came out. Copyright 2009.
All ENTS,
I've been asked by Ryan McEwan (that's Dr. McEwan from Dayton University) to
write a book review for the Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society - a most
honorable, prestigious society. The Society dates back to around around 1867, I
think and is usually considered to be the oldest botanical society in America.
It was created by John Torrey of Columbia University. I regard the invitation
to write the review as a singular highest honor.
Comments by the rest of you are most welcome. Ed, you are a veritable idea
mill. Steve, you are a botanical encyclopedia. Lee, you are the chief
scientist. Gary, you are a combination all the above.
I'm presently planning to evaluate the book on two scales or levels:
1. relative to other tree guides, and
2. on its merits without reference to other guides - an absolute scale
As a first first crack, I've composed the following evaluation matrix.
Category Relative Grade Absolute Grade
Physical size of book
Organization
General plant nomenclature
Choice of species
Species description
Drawings
Leaf
Bark
Tree profile
Flowers and fruits
Range maps
Tree dimensional information
All and all ideas/suggestions are welcome.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Caselli" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:01:29 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [ENTS] Sibley's new tree guide
I've never heard of this book, actually.
--- On Thu, 12/17/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [ENTS] Sibley's new tree guide
To: [email protected]
Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 2:21 PM
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]
--
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]
