Firstly, How Not To Do It:
This is singularly unhelpful: a not-very-clear picture of a tree, with no additional information, and no close ups.
If you put up an observation like this, the most you are likely to get is a terse Comment (probably from me) asking for more information.
This is much, much better:
As you can see, a selection of photos, clearly showing us:
The overall tree: this tells us it's general size, sometimes the shape, even in winter.
Picture of the branches: this tells us a lot about the leaf arrangement (this example is a conifer but it's the same for broadleaves).
Close-up of a diagnostic feature, ie something that can help get an ID - in this case, the cones are very distinctive, but it could be a catkin, a blossom, a leaf, or all of these.
With leaves, incidentally, try to get a photo or two, showing the shape, the margin (leaf edge), if it rolls under, if the leaf is a different colour underneath, the leaf veins, and so on.
The bark: personally I am very poor at bark ID but some iSpotters are much better than I am!
If you can't get good close-up photos, then write down as many of these features as you can see, and put these in your description.
In winter, with no leaves, take a photo of the bud, as close as your camera can get: essential for an ID - and we need a photo that shows if the buds are opposite (ie in pairs along the twig) or alternate, as well as showing a close-up of an individual bud so that we can see if it has scales, if it is hairy, what colour it is, and so on. Also, look under the tree at the leaf litter, and take photos of that.
All this will help you to create a good Observation, and to get a good ID.
No comments:
Post a Comment