The fun never ends: Solved, Carolina Buckthorn

[WDH]

Tom, I'm not familiar with TOW ???

In the context of Tree ID, it means Two Often Wrong. :D.

The genus name of the subject species sounds a little like an Egyptian Pharoah...... :P.

[Tom]

Tow, as in, take along. From the Words of Tom (wot) International Southern Interpretive Thesaurus.  A research vessel commonly called the  "WOT ISIT"

[Dodgy Loner]

Tom:  Ahhh, now I understand :D.

WDH:  Now everybody's going to be trying to come up with a scientific name than sounds like Tutankhamun  ;)

[Texas Ranger]

caroliniana?

[Tom]

cassanoides?

[Dodgy Loner]

TR: You got the last name alright. 8)

[WDH]

So the first syllable of the genus name (not the specific epithet, caroliniana), sounds like the first syllable of a famous Eqyptian Pharoah, but not Tutankhamun.  It is one of the other Pharoahs  :P.  Sounds the same, not spelled the same though.

[Texas Ranger]

He the one that made the birth control thingies?

[WDH]

You are getting very very warm, TR  .

[TexasTimbers]

. . . . wooden eye . . . .

Peg leg!   :D

I know you are bound to know that old joke Dan. ;D

[SwampDonkey]

Is it Celtis ?

If not, then I would guess Carolina buckthorn (yellowwood) Rhamnus caroliniana

My last guess would be persimmon, but it's not serrate, so that's that.

I'm leaning real hard on # 2.  ;D :D

[Dodgy Loner]

SD is right again, by virtue of the shotgun approach ;).  It's a Carolina buckthorn.  I've never heard Rhamnus caroliniana referred to as yellowwood, though: that common name is usually reserved for the much more elusive Cladastris kentuckea.

Buckthorn is an occasional understory plant in the Piedmont.  It seems to have a strong preference for sites that have never been farmed, so it must not like clay soil.  It makes an attractive ornamental, with lots of bright berries that stay red all summer and turn black right before winter.

kevjay: :D :D :D :D :D  I've heard that one before, too!

[SwampDonkey]

SD is right again, by virtue of the shotgun approach ;).  It's a Carolina buckthorn.  I've never heard Rhamnus caroliniana referred to as yellowwood, though: that common name is usually reserved for the much more elusive Cladastris kentuckea.

Well, not entirely shotgun. But one of the problems with ID from photos is your photos don't look like mine...err Audubon's.  ;D :D :D :D :D :D :D We've had buckthorn on the forum before. But, as to common names there is even a 'head strong' difference when you cross international or provincial boundary lines.

For instance, what's a hackmatack, or what's a Manitoba maple?  ;D :D :D

[Dodgy Loner]

I'm well aware of the difficulties regarding common names (we have the same problems down here ;)), but it seems odd to refer to a buckthorn as yellowwood.  The wood is actually an orangish-pink color (not surprising, considering it's related to the coveted African hardwood, pink ivory), while Cladastris wood is most definitely yellow.  Maybe buckthorn it becomes more yellowish in other parts of its range ???

Regarding your Audobon Field Guide, I'm not surprised that you're having trouble identifying trees with it.  Many of the pictures in it are not just bad, several of them are flat-out wrong.  The picture that is supposedly laurel oak is actually mountain-laurel, while the "overcup oak" is quite obviously an English oak :.  Not only that, but it contains misinformation: it says that the acorns of Arkansas oak, a red oak, mature the first year - patently untrue.

I'm pretty sure a hackmatack is a tamarack, but I've never heard of a Manitoba maple.  My first guess is sugar maple, followed closely by mountain maple.

[beenthere]

Try boxelder for the Manitoba maple   ;D ;D

boxelder

[WDH]

Why is it that most pictures in many tree ID books look like they were taken by morons?  Many times I have looked at pictures in books and remarked to myself, "It doesn't look like that !!" .  Many of the pictures are really poor and do not reveal the key characteristics.

BTW, my comparison of the genus name to an Egyptian Pharaoh was a stretch, I know..............Ramses and Rhamnus :.

[SwampDonkey]

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of Audubon field guides either. It's ok for a quick lookup though. I usually follow Peterson's or the Textbook of Dendrology. Much prefer a good detailed sketch and thorough description. If it's a Canadian native I use 'Native Trees of Canada'. Before I bought that book I knew we had a wild plum. We used to have a few on the old line fences. I used to pick them in September. A lot of them have been eradicated around here because it harbours the green peach aphid, which in monitored in potato fields with traps. The aphid carries diseases on potatoes, which are a big crop in this region.  And Dodgy, your right about that oak. As far as yellowwood, that's Audubon again. I think we have had yellowwood before on the forum to id, but without doing a search, I can't remember waht species. We could call Alaska Cedar (Yellow Cypress in Canada) yellowwood to.  ;D

[Dodgy Loner]

My first preference in a plant ID book is a color photograph taken by someone who really knows what they're doing, followed closely by a line drawing.  Line drawings are usually a good bet, because you really can't do one unless you know what you're doing.  Generally speaking, the more restricted the area that the book covers, the better it will be.  My favorite book is "Trees of Georgia and Adjacent States".  Of course even that book is not immune to error.  The two-wing silverbell Halesia diptera is actually a Carolina ash (Fraxinus carolina), while the swamp cottonwood Populus heterophylla is really an eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides.  Errors like that will cause relentless frustration for a budding dendrologist (and I should know - they both caused me fits when I was in high school, and it wasn't until college that I realized that the pictures, not me, were in error).

[Larry]

Well...I sure have learned a lot about tree id over the last year or so, right here.

Thanks to all of you FF foresters putting forth the effort and taking the time to post. 8) 8) 8)  Lot of times what I read here helps when I go back to the book.

Sometimes even the simple little tips help clear a fog...especially around my head.  For example I never heard of "shade leaves" until WDH took the time to explain in some other thread.

[WDH]

"You know what you know, and you don't know what you don't know  :".   

In tree ID, this is so true.  I may know a number of species, but without a way to see and experience the number of species that I don't know or have not seen, I will never progress.  It does not matter what your knowledge level is, from someone just starting to learn to the tried-and-true expert, you have to be exposed to new opportunities to continue learning. 

That opportunity to continue learning and to challenge yourself to learn more is a huge benefit of this Forum.  It is international, and a person will definitely be challenged to learn new things.  That is why it is exciting to me to be able to participate. 

The "What is it?" threads are fun because you have to test your knowledge.  You have to go back to the books and learn more than what you already thought you knew.  Or you might have to go out and get a leaf or look at some bark to see a characteristic that someone posted. 

The other really fun thing to me is to see what other Forum members have learned about certain species and how they ID them.  You can add those tips to your own ID arsenal, like the bright yellow inner bark color of Black Oak for example.  Plus, they throw new stuff at you all the time that you have not experienced.  Or, you find out that a characteristic that you thought distinguished a certain species turns out not to hold up in a broader range or in another part of the country.

In any event, this diatribe is about how interesting it is to interact with this core group of people who share what they know, challenge others to learn more, and to do both of them with a good sense of humor and modesty .

[Lanier_Lurker]

I knew it wouldn't take you long, WDH!  Here's another picture:

I think some of the leaves in the back ground show off that glossy green that you're talking about.

SD:  I did mention it when I first joined the forum, but I wanted it to be something that would take a while to figure out.  You and Texas Ranger are the only ones who have noticed so far ;).

Actually DL, I think you mean anagram, not acronym.  (This from a former Scrabble addict, wherein whacky anagram knowledge is very helpful)

[Dodgy Loner]

You're absolutely right, LL.  My mother (a former English teacher) would be disappointed :-\.

[SwampDonkey]

Well, I didn't want to say anything.  :