Bob, ENTS I've spent the past couple of days reading the Sibley guide and comparing it with others out there. Generally, Bob, I agree with your initial grading of the book, although I would give it a better mark(B) in range maps and a lesser mark(C) in organization and layout; the layout is visually attractive but I think it would be tedious and involved to key out an unknown tree the way it is organized, and as I mentioned earlier it is physically too big for a true field guide.
Some things I like about the book are: *Color illustrations*--often illustrations vs. photos convey the "feel" of a plant more accurately, and in some instances that's the case in this book. Visually and aesthetically this helps the book. However I have texts with line drawings of foliage, twigs, and fruit that do an even better job than either color illustrations or photos. *Range maps*--These seem to be a little more detailed and precise compared with most other guides, and I like the range maps of naturalized introduced species. *Hardiness zone ratings*--As someone from the horticulture end of the spectrum, I think it's great to include hardiness ratings, which has been done for a number of trees; it's too bad he didn't utilize the most current USDA zone map, though. Things I didn't like about the book: * Dimensional data*--I certainly agree with your F grade--no CBH or DBH dimensions are given, and heights are all across the board, too high or too low. It seems like he was drawing his information from possibly inaccurate historical accounts, old references, and anecdotal information. Definitely needs revision. *Tree profiles*--OK with some, sketchy to almost non-existent on many. * Discussion of forests or habitats*--Little information given with no meaningful discussion of forest types or biomes, other than the "ecoregions" map on the inside back cover, which seems like an afterthought since no references to those regions are given in the plant profiles. Overall I would say the book is a nice, attractive arm-chair reference, sort of like a bigger, more sophisticated Golden Nature guide(I still have my little Golden tree guide from 45 years ago). It would be ideal for someone with a new-found interest in trees, but I feel it falls short for those really "into" trees. It's not at the same level as David Sibley's bird guide. The best basic field guide, I feel, is the National Wildlife Federation "Field Guide to Trees of North America", by Kershner, Mathews, Nelson & Spellenberg, followed by the Peterson guide "Eastern Trees" by Petrides. I do not care at all for the Audubon Society tree guide. Steve -- 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]
