Scioly.org

Kokonilly wrote:

gneissisnice wrote:

FueL wrote: No. If there wasn't a binder for birds, there probably won't be one for trees.

Don't rule it out though, there was a binder allowed last time I did this event 6 years ago. It's possible that they'll allow it again even though birds didn't get one.

That's interesting, because if I recall correctly, Herpetology didn't allow a binder. I was under the impression that bugs, herpetology, birds, and trees were all analogous; wouldn't they allow the same resources each year per event?

Herpetology actually allowed a binder the first year they did it (in the last cycle I mean, 4 years ago), but the rules were changed the next year. So it's possible that thye have a new paradigm for all the biology ID events starting with Herpetology, or they could reverse it for Trees and Bugs and allow binders like they used to. It could go either way. So I wouldn't start making a binder now, but I wouldn't rule the use of a binder completely out at this point either.

I also think that we might need to know the anatomy of trees and flowers, for example, stigma, filament, stuff like that.

Does anyone think that Audubons Guide to North American Trees is helpful? I have one at home, and its pretty good, but it seems kind of small even though it has a lot of info in it.

gneissisnice wrote:Herpetology actually allowed a binder the first year they did it (in the last cycle I mean, 4 years ago), but the rules were changed the next year. So it's possible that thye have a new paradigm for all the biology ID events starting with Herpetology, or they could reverse it for Trees and Bugs and allow binders like they used to. It could go either way. So I wouldn't start making a binder now, but I wouldn't rule the use of a binder completely out at this point either.

Oh, I didn't know that. That's interesting.

havenguy wrote:Does anyone think that Audubons Guide to North American Trees is helpful? I have one at home, and its pretty good, but it seems kind of small even though it has a lot of info in it.

If I'm not mistaken, the 2004 national tree list is organized according to the Audobon Guide. That seems indicative that yes, it is helpful/recommended.

Alright, because it is very good at explaining id.

While looking through possible guides, I came across Sibley. Reminiscent of its success in the ornithological sense, I flipped through it in glee to see how great it really was! I really recommend it to anyone - there aren't as many forestry guides than ornithology, and this looks the best of all the ones I've perused so far.

Why, what does it have that Audubon doesn't have?

quizbowl wrote:While looking through possible guides, I came across Sibley. Reminiscent of its success in the ornithological sense, I flipped through it in glee to see how great it really was! I really recommend it to anyone - there aren't as many forestry guides than ornithology, and this looks the best of all the ones I've perused so far.

Yeah same. Its a great book for IDing trees.

Sibley creates great field guides. If there's a field guide allowed (maybe, since ornithology had one?) then I would use that.

fishman100 wrote:Sibley creates great field guides. If there's a field guide allowed (maybe, since ornithology had one?) then I would use that.

All field guides are allowed, just not all of them are recommended.

Will forestry allow a field guide, a list, and a sheet of notes that you can take to the competition?
just like ornithology