The Sibley Guide to Trees

Customer Reviews

• Finally a real field guide for trees  Oct 3, 2009 (59 of 62 found this helpful)

  I was very excited when I found Sibley's field guide for trees. I was secretly wishing that Sibley would produce a field guide for trees with the same level of detail as his guide to birds so I had been holding out for a long time to buy a field guide for trees. Sibley's field guide, unlike others, actually shows full color illustrations of each part (young/old bark, buds, flowers and most importantly, like he did with the bird guide, a full review of the different forms of a leaf of every tree). In just a few minutes of thumbing through the book I was able to ID a couple of trees that have been vexing me. Like Sibley did with birds, he has produced the definitive field guide to trees.

• Good first impression, but ...  Oct 14, 2009 (48 of 50 found this helpful)

  As someone who spends much of my free time poking about in the natural environment, has been an avid birder for over 35 years, and has a graduate degree in botany (ecology and systematics), I have used most of the major field guides and many of the more technical floras for North America. My hope was that this guide would be equivalent in importance to Sibley's bird guides.
  The first things I do with a new plant guide is test it against a flora I'm familiar with and see what sort of identification keys are used. I didn't notice any errors or exclusions for the trees of Michigan, but using a common ID problem for this area, looked at the comparison between white and red/green ash. Sibley notes that red/green ash may have hairy twigs, but doesn't make clear that they may also have smooth twigs, as does white ash. He also doesn't point out that growth habit is often a good clue for distinguishing red/green from white ash, nor does he mention that some authorities now split red/green into two species. This is the sort of thing that makes me doubt the book's usefulness if someone tries to use it in an unfamiliar flora.
  The biggest problem with this book, and I consider it to be significant, is the lack of identification keys. Although Sibley includes extensive illustrations of compound and lobed leaves in the beginning of the book, what does one do with an unfamiliar tree with a simple leaf? The only option is to start flipping through the pages, and that is a method that will lead to many misidentifications. Useful keying systems have been developed that don't require extensive knowledge of botanical terminology (e.g., Newcomb's system). Also, a glossary, or given Sibley's artistic gift, an illustrated glossary would be very helpful.
  There are some good things about this book. It is the only book I'm aware of that includes all (or nearly all) the native and naturalized trees, and many or most of the commonly planted ornamentals found in North America. It also includes a number of shrub species that rarely take tree form (in fact, its inclusiveness of ornamentals and shrubs seems a bit far reaching and inconsistent). The art work is good, but I don't think Sibley's style is nearly as effective for trees as it is for birds.
  This is an attractive book that presents basically sound information, but it seems to fall somewhere between a useful identification guide and an aesthetic celebration of trees. With a little tweaking and some editorial review by some botanists with regional or taxonomic specialties, this could be an awesome book.
  

• A work of art  Oct 10, 2009 (21 of 21 found this helpful)

  The artwork in this book puts me in mind of David More's work in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Trees which covers trees grown in England and Europe. I remember wishing there was a book of that quality for North America. In August of this year (2009) I got my wish.
  
  Sibley's guide is more portable than the aforementioned work. It's larger than the typical field guide but will fit into a backpack or can be left in the car.
  
  What strikes me most about Sibley's guide is the illustrations of leaves and fruit. They are more lifelike than even photographs can be and they seem to jump off of the clear white paper. The text is brief but mentions fine points in identification that make it invaluable. The only fault I can find with the book is it should have more tree silhouettes. Even with that fault I find it the best overall guide with its clear and precise leaf and fruit illustrations.

• Not a field guide  Oct 28, 2009 (4 of 4 found this helpful)

  This book is not suitable as a field guide, for two main reasons. First, the book is physically too large and heavy to be practical to carry around on long hikes. Second, there is no usable identification key for locating species. The paintings of leaves and trees are beautiful, but short of going page by page through large sections of the book, there is no way to quickly locate a particular tree. Compare this to the vastly superior decision tree and organization of the Peterson Field Guide to Trees and Shrubs, which lets you narrow your search to one or two candidate species in a matter of minutes by answering a series of yes/no questions about a leaf specimen. I wish Sibley had just donated his wonderful artwork to the Peterson series.

• Know your neighbors  Nov 1, 2009 (3 of 3 found this helpful)

  As an Australian recently arrived in the USA, this book has been my savior. I pride myself on my knowledge of the Australian flora and fauna, and I was becoming increasingly frustrated by my ignorance of the trees that adorn my patch of Kentucky. I have looked at a lot of reference works on the American flora, but many are intended for the home library, not the backpack or glovebox, and those which are not are often too limited to provide anything other than a general idea of what one is looking at. "The Sibley Guide To Trees" bridges the gap.
  I had not long been in this country when I bought "The Sibley Guide to Birds", which I use to confirm and expand on identifications I have made using my Falcon "The Easy Bird Guide: Eastern Region: A Quick Identification Guide for All Birders (Falcon Guide)". David Sibley's "Birds" set the standard for me and his "Guide To Trees" is of the same caliber.
  Sibley provides enough initial detail to narrow the field when you're seeking to name a particular tree, but he limits the use of scientific terms only to those necessary to identification, always welcomed if you are turned off by references that appear too technical. Clear, annotated illustrations of flowers, fruit and leaves along with tree silhouettes and in some cases branch and twig details are great refinements - as are the illustrations of the fall colors displayed by some species, these could be the clincher in identifying members of large families.
  A home-owner planning a native garden would also find this book a useful tool. Not only are average and maximum heights given, but the additional information will tell her how the garden might look throughout the year, leaf-color in fall, tree shape in winter and so on.
  One small thing stopped me from giving this book 5 stars. I would like to see a symbol used to identify naturalized garden escapes and another for introduced species. Even so, I would rank "The Sibley Guide To Trees" at 4.5 stars if it were possible to do so.