Trees Missing from the Sibley Guide to Trees
By Corey • November 18, 2009 • 4 commentsThough 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
• Camping tents - Check out our pop up tents, family tents, Vango tents, and more! •
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.