Preliminary:Forestry

[tuftedtitmouse12]

isn't that what you are supposed to do?
a field guide itself can't give you ALL the info you need afterall....

[fishman100]

For Ornitology, I used NWF, and the big Kaufman; our strategy was, since there are two books allowed, to use the Kaufman for all the info questions that I didn't know, and NWF for ID, even though I pretty much knew it all already, I still felt safer with it around in case any of the nightjars came up. I suggest doing the same thing for forestry; using the Sibley, which appears to be great for identification, in conjunction with some dendrology textbook or non-field guide.
I really have something against Audubon guides, something having to do with the tiny size of the book, and the separation of pictures, and the relative uselesenss of the pictures. Something typical they might do is, in the cone section, put an adult cone for Monterey Cypress and a juvenile for something else, and you're supposed to know the difference between the opposites. mSibley does this to a lesser extent, but they at least mention that soomething is bigger tahn something else, or the tree is in this shape, if they don't show it.

Great idea, but are 2 guides even allowed?

[anatomy]

For Ornitology, I used NWF, and the big Kaufman; our strategy was, since there are two books allowed, to use the Kaufman for all the info questions that I didn't know, and NWF for ID, even though I pretty much knew it all already, I still felt safer with it around in case any of the nightjars came up. I suggest doing the same thing for forestry; using the Sibley, which appears to be great for identification, in conjunction with some dendrology textbook or non-field guide.
I really have something against Audubon guides, something having to do with the tiny size of the book, and the separation of pictures, and the relative uselesenss of the pictures. Something typical they might do is, in the cone section, put an adult cone for Monterey Cypress and a juvenile for something else, and you're supposed to know the difference between the opposites. mSibley does this to a lesser extent, but they at least mention that soomething is bigger tahn something else, or the tree is in this shape, if they don't show it.

Great idea, but are 2 guides even allowed?

i don't think so, but that would be AMAZING if that was allowed
though it would make the event easy.

[amerikestrel]

For Ornitology, I used NWF, and the big Kaufman; our strategy was, since there are two books allowed, to use the Kaufman for all the info questions that I didn't know, and NWF for ID, even though I pretty much knew it all already, I still felt safer with it around in case any of the nightjars came up. I suggest doing the same thing for forestry; using the Sibley, which appears to be great for identification, in conjunction with some dendrology textbook or non-field guide.
I really have something against Audubon guides, something having to do with the tiny size of the book, and the separation of pictures, and the relative uselesenss of the pictures. Something typical they might do is, in the cone section, put an adult cone for Monterey Cypress and a juvenile for something else, and you're supposed to know the difference between the opposites. mSibley does this to a lesser extent, but they at least mention that soomething is bigger tahn something else, or the tree is in this shape, if they don't show it.

Great idea, but are 2 guides even allowed?

i don't think so, but that would be AMAZING if that was allowed
though it would make the event easy.

I have a feeling we'll get 2 guides, because it worked well last year in birds. I hope that they bring back the restriction on field guides, instead of allowing any books.

[Paradox21]

I have a feeling we'll get 2 guides, because it worked well last year in birds. I hope that they bring back the restriction on field guides, instead of allowing any books.

It is sometimes difficult to decide where the border between field guides and books lies. I think that technically a field guide is supposed to be small enough to haul into the field with you, but ultimately, I could probably lug a dictionary into the field if I wanted to. The first year of Ornithology only allowed field guides, but there were a lot of questions asked about what was considered a field guide, so for the second year, they changed the rules to allow any book, in order to dispel any ambiguity.

[PacificGoldenPlover]

isn't that what you are supposed to do?
a field guide itself can't give you ALL the info you need afterall....

But remember, you also had two pages of notecards to use.

[mingtian]

I have a feeling we'll get 2 guides, because it worked well last year in birds. I hope that they bring back the restriction on field guides, instead of allowing any books.

It is sometimes difficult to decide where the border between field guides and books lies. I think that technically a field guide is supposed to be small enough to haul into the field with you, but ultimately, I could probably lug a dictionary into the field if I wanted to. The first year of Ornithology only allowed field guides, but there were a lot of questions asked about what was considered a field guide, so for the second year, they changed the rules to allow any book, in order to dispel any ambiguity.

Yes, but I think most field guides have "Field guide" written on them. Audobon's Field Guide, Stoke's Field Guide, Peterson's Field Guide, Vullimier's Field Guide, The Field guide to North American Birds, Smithsonian's handbook to North American Birds.

[Paradox21]

Well, Smithsonian Handbook doesn't actually say field guide. And it has a lot of info, and only 1 picture per organism. Almost like a reference book...

[paleonaps]

IMO, a field guide and a handbook are one and the same.

[sciencechic]

Three Forestry binders done! Flash cards almost done!! Whoo hoo.... there are a lot of trees on the old list, some don't match up with names so it will be interesting to see what they use for the list.