Great comments Steve. Sibley rolled out his bird guide the same way, first published in a large format. Too big to take into the field (although some birders do), then later a reduced size version was introduced that is a true field guide.
Agree with you you on the NWF Field Guide to Trees of North America , it's my go-to guide followed by Michael Dirr's 'Manual of Woody Landscape Plants'. Dirr's "trees as ornament" perspective can be off-putting for instance when he describes Pitch Pine' like this: "...on exposed sites it is very grotesque, often sprawling, spreading and unsavory". Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I love the look of older pitch pine especially in exposed settings. Minor complaint. I like Dirr's line drawings of bud/twig structure and leaf examples. At 1187 pages it is not a field guide! It is a very useful reference. -Andrew Steve Galehouse wrote: > 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] -- 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]
