Rhus typina

FataMorgana

Are you certain the 3rd photo is the same plant as the other two? Winged sumac (Rhus copallinum) or burning bush (Euonymus alatus) have winged branches like the first two; what's left of leaves looks more like E. alatus to me, but that is just a guess.

I agree that the third picture looks to be of a different plant than the first two. The pictures shows a plant with compound leaves, so therefore it is not a burning bush.

im not sure and since you mentioned I looked closer and the leaves in the third are serrated and the top leaves look smooth. But it isnt a burning bush, these are wild plants (all of them) in my woods

Thanks, Babs. I answered quick looking at the final picture and only a glance at the first thinking this was all the same plant. R. typhina is one of my autumn favorites. Fall color is amazing and there is winter interest in the red berries that remain throughout the winter along with the interesting rounded shape of the colonies. It is a very short and short-lived tree.

Bushwhacker, you may wish to number or say that you have multiple ID's in the future for clarity. :) FYI - Burning bush (E. alatus) is an invasive species that has naturalized in many areas. Naturalized means it happily grows and reproduces like native plants. A burning bush could be found in a "wild" woodland setting.

FataMorgana

"A burning bush could be found in a "wild" woodland setting."

And is, across wide expanses of various parts of the country.

Just curious if there is something in the last photo that confirms it's r. typhina rather than r. glabra (smooth sumac), which is also native to the area. Thought the main differentiator was hairy branches on staghorn vs smooth ones on smooth.

Winged sumac in our area typically has longer leaflets than ones in the photos and more obovate opposite leaves often mean e. alatus, which does escape into the wild around here - fortunately not as badly as some locations in the NE US. Noticed there is a lot of shape variation across the winged sumac range, so concede my wrong guess to those more familiar with it.

"Just curious if there is something in the last photo that confirms it's r. typhina rather than r. glabra."

For me it's difficult due to the state of the leaf and since there aren't any branches in the photo. It looks fairly toothy, but still within the possible range of R. glabra to my eye since it varies in toothiness, though IME R. typhina is a bit toothier. The leaf texture looks a bit more like R. typhina, but being a photo of an old leaf, that could be totally off as well. So for me there isn't anything that confirms it for sure as one or the other. Perhaps the OP can take a photo of the plant's branches if s/he knows which plant had which leaf.