Trees Missing from the Sibley Guide to Trees

By Corey • November 18, 2009 • 4 comments

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?

Tags: Asides

• Squirrels raiding your bird feeders? BUST THEM! •

Explore These Related Posts

...Or These Blasts From The Past

About the Author

Corey

Corey is a New Yorker who has lived most of his life upstate but has spent the last three years in Queens. He's only been birding since 2005 but has garnered a respectable life list by birding whenever he wasn't working as a union representative or spending time with his family. He lives in Forest Hills with Daisy, their son, Desmond Shearwater, and their two indoor cats, Hunter and B.B.

4 Responses to “Trees Missing from the Sibley Guide to Trees”

jason Nov 18th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
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.
jason Nov 18th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
And by the way: the ‘faux fir’ has NOT been accepted to academic circles. NYT including that one is just wrong. Bad science, that!
Corey Nov 18th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
@jason (and everyone else): One should always click the link before commenting…
Donna Nov 19th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Ohhhh. Duh. And it’s not even April 1st.