Though Mike reviewed The Sibley Guide to Trees positively I am sad to say that the New York Times has managed to discover quite a few species of trees that were left out of Mr. Sibley’s guide. Perhaps a new edition needs to be prepared?
Looking for a good book or field guide? We've got some suggestions...
You need a popular posts plugin to use this options. Here are some options.
There are approximately 10,000 bird species on this beautiful planet. Welcome to 10,000 Birds, where, between us, we expect to eventually see every single one. Expect plenty of commentary on nature, science, politics, and blogging along the way.
10,000 Birds is powered by Mike Bergin, Charlie Moores, and Corey Finger.
We'd love to hear from you so drop us a line.
Copyright © 2010 10,000 Birds. All words, images, and opinions are the property of their respective authors unless stated otherwise.
Options theme by Justin Tadlock
I think it’s along the same lines as the bird guide: it needs updates. Major updates. I’ve seen his “corrections” on his blog regarding even descriptive issues in the tree guide, and I know the bird guide is so far out of time that its range maps and species inclusions no longer match reality (and haven’t for decades).
Then again, I think part of it in his favor is twofold: science moves quickly and publication moves slowly, and typos and mistakes find their way into everything we call “finished.” Thus is the nature of nature.
And by the way: the ‘faux fir’ has NOT been accepted to academic circles. NYT including that one is just wrong. Bad science, that!
@jason (and everyone else): One should always click the link before commenting…
Ohhhh. Duh. And it’s not even April 1st.