Customer Reviews

Trees of the Southeastern United States

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I found the book's keys difficult to use for identification of trees because the terminology was totally scientific. There were no drawings for clarity, and the photos were not adequate for identification. The book was a disappointment.

There would seem to be some justice to the earlier review. This book obviously is handicapped by the absence of illustrations: some line drawings accompanying each species would greatly enhance the usefulness of this book. The color photographs are few (at most one per species), fairly small and many suffer from a dark background: also they are in a separate part and not near the descriptions. This book is not in the same league as John Laird Farrar's work for northern North America.

Still the pictures are of a pretty good quality. For most species a distribution map is provided. The volume is well-printed. In many respects it complements Harrar&Harrar's "Guide_to_Southern_Trees". Maybe these two together make up a complete book?

PS I don't dare judge the quality of the descriptions, although I do note that the authors refer to "Betula alba" as if it is an extant name, which is a pretty backward thing to do.

The pictures in the book are very nice, color photographs. However, there is little organization to the photo section. For example, in the beech family photo plates you will see several oaks listed....I dont know why.

The range maps are totally useless.

I am a biologist so I am familiar with the terms and information in the descriptions, but I can see the confusion or need for a supplementary field guide for non-scientists.

This is a book full of information. However, unless you read Latin and work in this field, you aren't likely to get much out of it. For professionals, I would recommend this book. As for me, I really can't use it.