It’s wonderful and helpful to know your trees, but truly accurate ID isn’t always all that easy.  Trees, on one level, are pretty simple.  On another, they are pretty tricky. 

 

I routinely bird with a friend who is a remote-sensing scientist, with an agricultural/forestry background.  He knows his trees.  

 

When we started out, he’d look at trees and I’d look at birds.  His species stood still, and I’d be looking at all sorts of half-seen things, so he got curious and started checking out the birds, too.  And I started learning about the trees.  After three years, we’re (I’m) getting to where we can pretty accurately call the tree to each other, so we can put each other on that bird in the white pine or the loblolly fairly easily.  

 

That said, there’s still a lot of times that he goes to his book to ID a tree.  It’s not as clear-cut as one might think, especially when you’re in an area where people have lived and planted odd specimens. Or when you go to a different region.  We can and have lost the bird over a discussion of what tree that could actually be! 

 

To illustrate: when doing field work in Maine this year, with a group of forest scientists, they believed they found a record-sized mountain maple and they thought they found some American Chestnuts in an odd location.  They broke out books, checked with each other, and called in the
 local forester to confirm.   To be completely accurate in trees, it’s not always easy.  Not that birders need that degree of accuracy, but if you put me on a box elder, I’d probably scan through a bunch of maples before I got there – as that species isn’t the easiest one for me to pick out!  At least I wouldn’t be in the pine, though! 

 

What I’m trying to say is: while it’s great to put someone on a bird in a specific tree species, it’s not always possible even when you bird with a tree expert.  Being able to be descriptive, such as “the dark tree to the right of the twisted pine” is an important part of a birder’s vocabulary…. at least as important as tree species, in my humble opinion! 

 

He also likes to describe the height of the bird spot, in meters.  He’s done a lot of measurements of trees in the field, so he’s pretty comfortable saying “look in the branches about 20 meters up”…. Huh?  It’s a good skill to be able to accurately eyeball heights, whether meters or feet, but I still find it hard to get on something at a specific height. Just give me the description of the nearest cross branch! 

 

That said, I’m finding the better I know the trees, the easier it is to look for certain birds, because they prefer certain habitats.  And the more fun it is on a sunny afternoon when the birds
 are silent and still, yet those trees still stand there, begging for attention.  I’m all for this new book and education about trees – just please don’t expect me to be able to get right on that box elder, even with all my studying!  

 

The new Sibley IS on my Christmas list – what to give the forest scientist who has *everything*!!! Thanks!  



Joanne Howl, DVM
West River, MD



-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Davis <>
To: 
Sent: Wed, Oct 7, 2009 1:00 am
Subject: Re: [MDOSPREY] New Sibley Guide


Rick, et al. 
 
I really chuckled when someone asked a birding leader what a certain tree was. The leader replied, "I know five trees ... and that's not one of them!" 
 
(I could relate!) 
 
Phil 
 
At 08:09 AM 10/06/2009, Rick Sussman wrote: 
>I'm not sure how many of you are aware, but David Sibley has a new >guide out, The Sibley Guide to Trees. 
(snip) 
>Should be required reading (or at least required browsing!) for all >birder's. As a frequent field trip leader I often use trees as >landmarks; "it's perched in the small box elder next to that big >sycamore tree...", but I'm often surprised at how few people have >any tree ID skills. 
 
================================== 
Phil Davis Davidsonville, Maryland USA 
  mailto:[log in to unmask] 
================3
D==================