Customer Reviews

The Sibley Guide to Trees

5 star:		(22)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

This guide seems designed to sell rather than to be useful; to be looked at rather than used. It lacks some things that it really should have.

First, as pointed out by others, it needs some kind of key system for identification.

Most importantly, this book needs more than two or three sentences per tree. The distinguishing features listed are in many cases wholly insufficient to accurately and consistently identify the species. Sibley perhaps sees trees as being as simple to identify as birds; due to introgression, they are not. One or two features is not enough to go on. Often, very useful identification features are left out of his text. For example, in his description of rock elm, there is no mention of the growth form/tree shape, which is by far the most distinctive aspect of this tree, and the easiest way to identify it.

The selection of trees included is very odd indeed. While he says that "any plant species that is commonly over 30 feet tall with a trunk more than one foot thick is included in this guide," this is simply not true. Peachleaf willow, for example, grows to be more than three feet in diameter and seventy feet in height, but is oddly not included. While many questionable "trees" such as glossy buckthorn are included, others that average larger in size, such as black haw, are not. The blue elder of the mountain west is not discussed, even though it commonly grows in tree form and may stand 30 or more feet tall. While he excuses this erratic inclusion in the introduction by saying that "one could quibble endlessly over the definition of a tree," this seems like a cop-out. Other guides, like the old Outdoor Life guide by T. Elias, do not have this problem. A tree guide should at least cover the common and widespread species that regularly reach tree size, even if they are usually smaller; if it chooses to cover only some, there should be some logic or consistency in how this is done.

The three things that I have pointed out seem to have been left out to save space. This is probably the publisher's fault. I understand that many buyers want a small book, or a pocket guide. Less inclusive guides are made for them. People who want a thorough and inclusive tree guide need to realize that there are lots of trees and accept that such a guide will simply have to be physically large. The Sibley guide tries to be both small and thorough and simply fails. Another year of work and 150 more pages could make this book the best of its kind.

All that said, it's a good book. I was disappointed only because I expected it to be great. It is certainly better than its main competitors in this niche. I'd recommend, along with this, getting a more thorough guide that is specific to your region.

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.

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.

This is an amazing book. It is not the most comprehensive guide, but covering more the most common half of tree species in North America, it would be quite unwieldy to tote around if Sibley were aiming at completeness. Sibley has arranged the trees by families, which is quite convenient for narrowing down what you are trying to identify. However, what makes this book such a fantastic companion is how he can pack the most relevant information, mainly in pictorial form, about each tree in a page or two. The illustrations of leaves (often both sides, some in fall colors), bark, twigs, seeds, nuts, acorns, flowers, etc. are geared to helping make a rapid identification. By using pictures, instead of lengthy descriptions, you can instantly compare the tree you are looking at to the species in the book. If you are interested about the trees in your back yard, the local park, or hiking through the forest, this guide can help you find out what you are looking at. Knowing the name, can then be the spring board to find out more our leafy friends.

Wow! I really like this book. It is easy to use and gives so much information to make it easier for a "newbie" like me to identify trees. The drawings are detailed with good descriptions. The quality of the book is great in every way.

The reason I like this book better than one on trees for my section of the country is that so many times I come across a tree that is "non-native" to my area and it is not listed in the other tree books. This book has native trees and common trees. I have found it very useful.

I guess this would be useful if you needed a quick guide to identify every tree in the continental US. Descriptions are very skimpy and they often feature 2 or even 3 trees per page. For me, this book was a waste of money. If you're not planning to visit all 48 states you would be much better served by buying a good regional guide. I live in Maine and I find Trees of the Northern United States And Canada is much more useful as they devote 2 full pages to each tree.

Other reviews that don't give this a 5 seem to be done by jealous tree professionals. For the common user, this is the best ever. I especially like the images of each tree showing different seasonal stages. I have yet to have the book fail to ID the many trees I have on this 1,400 acre farm.