Confused Bark

[WDH]

I love to observe tree bark.  To me, it is the single most diagnostic feature that I use in Id'ing trees.  I was in South Louisiana a few days ago and I came across this specimen.  This tree is confused as to whether it has smooth bark or furrowed bark  .

 



Anyone care to ID this tree?  Notice what is growing in the background and the site to get a hint.  No leaves were out, so this confused bark and the background conditions are the only things that you have to go on  .

[OneWithWood]

I love to observe tree bark.  To me, it is the single most diagnostic feature that I use in Id'ing trees. 

In a matter of seconds Swampdonk will come wading in to tell you what a mistake that is 

As for the tree, I don't think my guess grows that far south so it would be inaccurate.  Of course it could be some type of cypress that is confused, but then again I might be confused. 

[SwampDonkey]

A big mistake. You standing there beside a tree and looking at a lot more than just tree bark, things we can't see. Then asking us to ID it. So thumbs down to that. 

[tonich]

To me, it is the single most diagnostic feature that I use in Id'ing trees.

I wouldn’t count on it.
It could be really perplexing sometimes.

According to local forest act, all trees should be marked prior cutting. According to the same act, trees must be marked leaved only.


PS. Haven’t got a clue about the tree itself.

[pineywoods]

Looks just like that osage I cut up last week. I'd say it's in the middle of a thicket of bay

[Dodgy Loner]

My first guess would be some sort of ash.  I would have guessed loblolly-bay, but since you mentioned it doesn't have leaves, I have to rule that one out.  Looks a lot like some of the yellow-poplar bark I've seen, but you wouldn't find that growing in a swamp.  So I'll go with ash.

[Jeff]

To me, it is the single most diagnostic feature that I use in Id'ing trees.

For me, I would say the first diagnostic feature. Then I go from there.

I dont have a clue on the species.

[SwampDonkey]

A wild guess from me here, water tupelo.

[ARKANSAWYER]

  Swamp Cottonwood

[Texas Ranger]

swamp oak with some really neat vines growing on it.

[Dodgy Loner]

My second guess is swamp tupelo, Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora, not to be confused with water tupelo, Nyssa aquatica.  I think I see a little buttressing at the base.

[Riles]

Cottonwood.

[WDH]

I realize that showing some weird bark on a tree ID question is not fair...  However, it was so unique that I just had to post the pic! 

To defend my predilection for bark, it comes from too many hours of observing trees in the wild, not reading books.  After you look at a tree species a hundred times, the bark becomes a consistent characteristic in a given region or locale to differentiate species.  It is not so good when going from region to region.  I assume climate and soils have an effect.  For instance, northern red oak bark down here is dark with bold silver streaks.  Very striking.  In Harrison, Michigan, I found it to be much lighter in color with indistinct streaks.  Anyway, enough on bark!

Kudo's to Swampdonkey and Dodgy, two renown tree experts.  I believe the tree to be water tupelo.  It is definitely a Nyssa.  The leaves I found on the ground seemed to indicate water tupelo, but I cannot fully rule out swamp tupelo.  If I had to bet $1,000, it would be on water tupelo  .

Anyway, my last word on the subject are, "Bark rules"!

[Gary_C]

  After you look at a tree species a hundred times, the bark becomes a consistent characteristic in a given region or locale to differentiate species.  It is not so good when going from region to region.  I assume climate and soils have an effect. 

I'll second that. Even going from southern to northern Minnesota there are differences. And sometimes I think trees take on characteristics of bark of the trees that surround them. Kind of like trying to fit in with the surroundings.

For a logger, especially a pulp wood cutter in a mixed stand when that log gets to the pile, the bark and end is all you've got. And back some years ago, when Potlatch owned that big pulp mill in Cloquet, MN they were very strict on single species loads. Those guys in the scale house could pick one stick of Basswood out of a twelve cord load of popple every time.

[SwampDonkey]

Easy to tell basswood  from aspen.  Those guys even have end grain to view. Would be few sticks on a load you couldn't see the ends. But, yes I will agree it's easier to become familiar with bark of species in your area.

Even a tree thinner is mostly looking at stump bark. Your not looking up all day or you end up on your back or production falls so low you might as well stay in bed. My guys find it hard to distinguish butternut from ash, leaves look the same and bark don't look too distinct on small trees. I try to flag any I find. I cut a red oak a couple times, as it looked like aspen bark when a small tree.  One thing up here is we are not dealing with several species of oak, hickories, or very many basswood or butternut. That's part of the trouble when an oak, basswood or butternut gets cut, they sneak up on you. You don't expect to see one when the majority of the site is yellow birch, maple, beech and fir. Most times you wouldn't know you cut it in those thickets. I can go to the Marketing Board log yard and pick each species out without hesitation. There isn't many choices and some are rare.

[woodtroll]

I am a firm believer in id by bark, and that there is regional changes and even site changes. But I would be very hesitant to use a leaf on the ground to id a tree in the woods. They blow around. The branching would be my next clue, if you can see them. Gum should have distinct branching pattern. I have used that many times on black gum that tend to look like other trees.

[fishpharmer]

Cool looking tree for sure. 

[WDH]

You use everything that you can find as input to ID a tree.  The more characteristics that you can compile, the better you are, including leaves, fruit, bark, twigs, buds, flowers, taste, branching habit, site and smell.  Even leaves on the ground.  I have scratched around many an oak trunk to dig for acorn cups. 

[OneWithWood]

Reminds me of a field day we had last November for the 5th grade classes of two local schools.  The students were divided into groups and each group was assigned a species of tree for which they had to identify and then collect a leaf and seed to verify the identification.  The poor kids who were assigned the northern red oak tree had a tough time.  Even though there are a number of true northern reds on the property there are a large number of northern red / scarlet oak hybrids.  To make matters worse last year was a poor mast year for the reds.  They scrounged around a number of reds only to come up with hickory nuts.  The hickories were a few tree lengths away! 
Those squirrels are real good at causing confusion. 

[Chico]

Looks like a tuper gum(black or Tupelo)  I too see the swelling on the base could be cottonwood but I don't think so