Preliminary:Forestry

[gneissisnice]

So, we need to know subspecies too right? Like different Oaks.

Are you talking about subspecies as in (for example) red-shafted and yellow-shafted flickers?
Then yes.

Yes, you do need to know specific oaks (it wouldn't be a very difficult event otherwise, after all).

Oak is actually a genus, species are things like "black oak" or "scrub oak".

[kjhsscioly]

So, we need to know subspecies too right? Like different Oaks.

You are confusing species with subspecies. A species would be a ponderosa pine, and it has four subspecies (northern plateu, rocky mountains, southwestern, and pacific) , which are usually set apart by geographical regions and can hybridize freely. They share the main characteristics of the species, but are slightly different in the conditions the live in, and sometimes coloration. Subspecies can be specific to forests as well.

[NYLHVSSO]

The oak would be the genus, and the species would be a specific type of oak (ex: Chesnut Oak).

[JSGandora]

I read a lot of people advocating about the Audobon field guide but it only comes in two books - eastern and western trees. To anyone who is using the Audobon field guide, did you find an edition that combined the eastern and western trees? Also, does anyone recommend Sibley? People are saying that you shouldn't use it because it has drawings instead of pictures but does anyone else have an opinion on this? Would having drawings have a disadvantage to pictures?

[Cheesy Pie]

Is this event only on modern-day trees or on prehistoric trees? Like, will trees that aren't found anymore but did exist be on the test, or will only currently living trees be on the tests?

[Flavorflav]

Is this event only on modern-day trees or on prehistoric trees? Like, will trees that aren't found anymore but did exist be on the test, or will only currently living trees be on the tests?

No one can answer this with complete assurance until the rules are official, but in the past the ID events have never included extinct species as far as I can recall.

[tuftedtitmouse12]

I read a lot of people advocating about the Audobon field guide but it only comes in two books - eastern and western trees. To anyone who is using the Audobon field guide, did you find an edition that combined the eastern and western trees? Also, does anyone recommend Sibley? People are saying that you shouldn't use it because it has drawings instead of pictures but does anyone else have an opinion on this? Would having drawings have a disadvantage to pictures?

no, i don't believe there is an edition of the audubon series containing both east and west trees.
with ornithology last year, i really liked drawings because they could show you field marks and traits that a photograph might not be able to show. but as for trees, they don't move and it is fairly easy to take good, quality, and helpful pictures, personally, i am determined to get a photograph field guide.
I personally used peterson instead of sibley for ornithology, so i don't really like the sibley series due to the fact that their layout is something i can never get used to. also, i don't really like audubon as an ID book, more of a fact book to copy down facts, and i don't think it would be good to take it into competition due to the fact that the plates are on different pages than the information.

there, i think ive answered most of your questions...i hope my reply helps

[NYLHVSSO]

I read a lot of people advocating about the Audobon field guide but it only comes in two books - eastern and western trees. To anyone who is using the Audobon field guide, did you find an edition that combined the eastern and western trees? Also, does anyone recommend Sibley? People are saying that you shouldn't use it because it has drawings instead of pictures but does anyone else have an opinion on this? Would having drawings have a disadvantage to pictures?

no, i don't believe there is an edition of the audubon series containing both east and west trees.
with ornithology last year, i really liked drawings because they could show you field marks and traits that a photograph might not be able to show. but as for trees, they don't move and it is fairly easy to take good, quality, and helpful pictures, personally, i am determined to get a photograph field guide.
I personally used peterson instead of sibley for ornithology, so i don't really like the sibley series due to the fact that their layout is something i can never get used to. also, i don't really like audubon as an ID book, more of a fact book to copy down facts, and i don't think it would be good to take it into competition due to the fact that the plates are on different pages than the information.

there, i think ive answered most of your questions...i hope my reply helps

I don't think I'd use the Audubon for competition because the style of the book and the format is not fit for competition.

In Ornithology I liked how the drawings pointed out the key features of the bird (I used Peterson).

For next year's Forestry, I am planning to use the National Wildlife Federation field guide. I think that one has photographs.

And no, I don't think there is an Audubon with east and west, but perhaps states might only do trees that are in the region. We don't know yet until the rules come out.

[tuftedtitmouse12]

oh yes, thanks for reminding me NYLHSSO
NWF is a very good book, with fairly good photographs
if you need more info, i guess you could copy down the audubon info into the NWF

[JSGandora]

Thank you, tuftedtitmouse12, your response really helped. Now my choices are between National Wildlife Federation and Sibley, but I'll probably get NWF since it have pictures rather than drawings.