I've used Newcomb's and Peterson's guides a bit. Newcomb's is all based on line-drawing rather than photos, which some people prefer, though I'm certainly not one of them. I guess in general Newcomb's has kind of an air of technicality about it, but I figure they're both about the same, really--either one'll probably let you figure out the common stuff, neither one will let you figure out the uncommon stuff.

Patrick Alexander

Newcombs is very popular because of the easy-use key. It is very simple, and provides you with quick access to the plant. I do not like either because sometimes I like to look up plants that aren't in flower.
t P.S. Gordon Morrison is also a great illustrator.

in my opinion, the photos are better in Peterson's but the descriptions of the plants are better in Newcomb's; particularly when trying to distinguish between plants of the same species.

Thanks for the input. We might be talking about different guides -- my Peterson's is all drawings, like the bird guide -- no photographs. I don't like photographic guides, such as the Audubon's. Because of the limits of photography -- only one specimen, in a particular light, etc., I am much more likely to say about a plant, "But it doesn't look like the picture" than "But it doesn't look like the drawing." But I do use them to help confirm guesses.

Trilliophile: I agree that the frustrating aspect of wildflower guides is the emphasis on flowers, where many native plants are only in flower for a very short period. What do you use to identify herbaceous plants that are not in flower?

The Peterson's guide is organized by flower color, which I find easy to use (assuming you have a flower to look at), and then organized loosely based on structure within each color, with a fair amount of overlap for plants that vary. Is Newcomb's organizational scheme different?

Thanks,

wd

I started with Peterson, now mostly use Newcombs but usually have both in the backpack when hiking. I would rather work with a line drawing of a typical plant instead of photographs of an actual plant.

The big advantage to me of Newcomb is the easy to use keying system. Even if the plant is not in flower, you can often tell by the seed how many petals the flower had and go from there. Or I will search the keys for every plant with leaves that match the flowerless one in front of me and, more often than not, get a match.

Newcombs also includes flowering shrubs, small trees and vines, so useful when small shrubs and large herbs overlap in size.

Newcomb includes some plants that Peterson doesn't and vice versa so it is useful to have both.

Ah. I was getting the Peterson's and Audubon guides confused. Ho hum.

Personally, I greatly prefer photographic guides. While an individual photograph might not accurately represent the species (though I think that once you stare at enough of them to become a "visual expert" this isn't much of a problem), a line drawing might not accurately represent anything. A good line drawing can better represent technical characters than a photograph, but can never do as well as a photograph when it comes to simply showing what the plant looks like...

Patrick Alexander

wd, Newcomb's is organized based on a key that is driven by flower type. So if you have a flower to start with, it is fairly easy to use the key and id the plant. But if you don't have a flower, it can be much tougher to use.

I actually have both Peterson's and Newcomb's and regularly use them both. I've found plants that don't look much like the drawing in one book but are dead-on with the drawing in the other book. This year I added a field guide that is more local called "Kane County Wild Plants and Natural Areas". (Kane county is adjacent to the county where i live.) I resisted this one for years, but after I purchased it I was able to ID a plant that had stumped me for two years. Turns out that the plant (Verbena hastata alba) wasn't in either Newcomb's or Peterson's because it's not widely distributed. So look for something regional if you can.

And good luck with the goldenrods!

V.

For trees and shrubs, may I recommend an alternative to the Petrides book in the Peterson's series? It's "The Tree Identification Book" and "The Shrub Identification Book", both by George Symonds. The books feature photographs of leaves, twigs, bark, flowers, and fruit, so you can identify the plant at any time of year. The photos give an excellent sense of what the plant looks like. The only disadvantage is their size -- they are quite a bit larger than a standard field guide.

I own the Petrides book, but I never use it any more, and I don't know any botanists who carry it in the field. The drawings aren't very good, and it's not as accurate as it should be.

Thanks so much for the explanations, opinions and recommendations. I love any advice that gives me an excuse to go to the bookstore.

-- wd

Peterson's and Newcomb's are both good books, and I've seen both at used book stores. Audubon's is a good addition Because, it tells you more about the plants then just their
id traits. I have picked up most of my field guides at used
book stores.

Newcomb's was one of the text books for a wildflower botany class I took. All I can say is thank goodness I had a knowledge of wildflowers prior to taking the class (and had a copy of Peterson's) or else I would have flunked the course.

I could not identify much if anything using Newcomb's - I presume my ability to describe a plant and translate that description to his key is seriously lacking.

I really like the key in Newcomb's. Although I have Peterson's and Audubons, I rarely use them. My Newcomb's is falling apart with so much use. If the plant isn't in flower, I just look at all the references to, say, "wildflowers with alternate leaves, leaves divided" and see if I find one that looks like what I'm seeing.

Peterson is great if you have a fair idea of what the family is before you start. For cold starts one would do better with Newcomb. Regards, Peter.