Tree I.D. help please

[buzz sawyer]

sheesh, man, lets just call it fire wood and be done with iti only work with 2 types of trees anyway. is it a trim or a remove?:monkey:

NOOOOOOO! Gotta keep it going till Spring so we can see some leaves. Ater that we can meet there for a GTG and drop it.:hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange:

 

[(WLL)]

NOOOOOOO! Gotta keep it going till Spring so we can see some leaves. Ater that we can meet there for a GTG and drop it.:hmm3grin2orange: :hmm3grin2orange:

man buzz have i got a great deal fer you!! i got a few trees at my house. if you get them down ill trade ya fer the wood they provide whadya say man, we got a deal or what?

 

[buzz sawyer]

man buzz have i got a great deal fer you!! i got a few trees at my house. if you get them down ill trade ya fer the wood they provide whadya say man, we got a deal or what?

HAHA - might consider that if you can prove it's really Hawelm Ashbeam.

 

[skinnykid02]

Hi gang,

Have been Busy lately and haven't been able to keep up!! Another Mystery tree got split by the ice storm in a neighbors hard. Looks like it was hit by lightning. Some of the top is laying on the ground. I have dibs on the tree to remove it so I will get some good pics.

I was talking to a guy at work, explaining the tree. Sounded to him like Locust.

Really don't know, but the bark is rough, when split the grain is very straight and light in color. Burns real hot even under seasoned.

I would have to say that the ground is wet where it grows,at least my yard is.
other trees around it are Pine, Maple, lots vines and poison ivy.

 

[treeshot]

what is this leave?

Looking through the books i think it is a rock elm ,look this up and see if you agree.stem in opposing sides of leaves lines up in middleof other side only one ihave seen with such leaves.:greenchainsaw: :greenchainsaw:

 

[S Mc]

I looked up Rock elm, Ulmus thomasii, as I am unfamilliar with this species. It still has a rather typical elm leaf in that it has an asymmetrical, rounded base rather than strongly cuneate as in the op's picture. The bark also looks different to me.

Skinny, it is not a locust. Locust, both Black and Honeylocust, have pinnately and bipinnately compound leaves. Much smaller and finer, even if this is a leaflet and not the entire leaf.

Sylvia

 

[pdqdl]

From Steyermark's Flora of Missouri, concerning Rock elm, Ulmus thomasii: leaf-stalks (petioles) 3-10 mm long, base of leafstalks without hairs on lower side, bud's are hairy; corky growth only on older branches; fully grown leaves mostly 8-15 cm long, 3-9 cm broad.

That is a pretty big leaf. Ulmus leaves are at least partly "doubly dentate" with margins toothed regularly from base to summit. Not a match, IMO. In fact, I don't want to hear anybody call this thing any kind of elm unless they do their research. And quote it, too!

skinnykid02 has never answered the most obvious and diagnostic variable available: opposite or alternate branching. We keep talking about calling experts, and evaluating how wet the ground is, but we are not getting the basic and necessary information.

I'm sticking with Sylvia's first ID. And I'm not switching until I see a picture of some alternate branching.

 

[buzz sawyer]

Another look

A compilation of the original leaf and leaves from the sites posted so far.

I can't wait till Spring.

 

[pdqdl]

Great side by side pictures!

I can see from your perspective one problem that has not been identified: the mystery tree is a picture of the bottom side of the leaf, a little out of focus, and seems to have a prominents arch. Viewed from that perspective, it is not even possible to accurately evaluate the serrations on the leave, nor the union with the petiole.

I'm still waiting for information from the original poster for this thread. I suspect this one will go into the annals of arboriculture as unresolved.

 

[buzz sawyer]

Great side by side pictures!

I can see from your perspective one problem that has not been identified: the mystery tree is a picture of the bottom side of the leaf, a little out of focus, and seems to have a prominents arch. Viewed from that perspective, it is not even possible to accurately evaluate the serrations on the leave, nor the union with the petiole.

I'm still waiting for information from the original poster for this thread. I suspect this one will go into the annals of arboriculture as unresolved.

That's a great observation - one I had not considered. I hope we do get more photos - we've had too much good input from good people to let this drop.

 

[S Mc]

Buzz does it again! I am so impressed with your computer abilities, Buzz. Great aid to comparing the leaves.

I am going to have to progress from "casually dropping a hint" to a friend who lives in that area to becoming annoying persistent and try to get her to drive by.

Periodically I get out Dirr's book and walk through it some more to see what we might be missing. And I just am not coming up with anything satisfactory yet.

Sylvia

 

[the westspartan]

He says it burns well under-seasoned. I know you can burn most ash under-seasoned. The leaf seams fairly ashlike if it is a leaflet. The wood and bark look like ash as well. I say ash.

 

[1953greg]

I took a picture of the leaf over the summer when I first cut another tree like it.

im still not convinced the leaf belongs w/ the wood. either way there wont b any leaves on the wood pieces!!!