watchamakalit
ArboristSite Operative
Im not a professional but that looks like a maple to me. Definitely not cottonwood, cottonwood bark is much thicker.
Tree identification Firewood identification
- Thread starter Firemaker1111
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Yeah definitely not Cottonwood. The more I look at it and see the bark peeling off in slabs and the strings, tells me Basswood.
That's what I was thinking as it's punky, not looking good for firewood, obviously it's piss wood
.
Eh. You'll have to take that up with Vanderbilt University. bioimages.vanderbilt.edu/baskauf/13650.htm
...and several other tree identification spots. The oldest version of that pic on the internet is from 2012. I kinda think somebody would have changed that ID in the last 8 years if it was wrong.
Shellbark hickory we don't have around here; I never heard of it prior to your post.
https://www.uky.edu/hort/Shellbark-Hickory
"Shellbark hickory is similar to the pignut and shagbark hickories. It was once abundant in American bottom lands but is now nearly gone from its native habitat."
"Shellbark hickory, abundant at settlements on bottom lands, was overused. Native populations were nearly eliminated and today are still rare."
The bark is actually quite similar, so you might be right. Univ. of Mo image of a shellbark: 
Growth rings are much too large IMHO. Identifying a tree by the bark is very difficult with many species, some it's quite easy.
Even though he stated (Edit; almost)exactly what you're saying, you'll never "win" in this discussion
.
Could be Carya aquatica.
Or even a cultivar of pecan, Carya illinoensis.
Lots of rot in that stump.
Or even a cultivar of pecan, Carya illinoensis.
Lots of rot in that stump.
First tree is 100% positively hickory. I'd only need a 1" square of the bark or whiff of a freshly split piece to ID that one. It's shagbark most likely, but shellbark is a remote possibility if in a bottomland. Shellbark bark plates are usually a bit bigger than shagbark. If you know your local trees you CAN identify most of them quite easily from the bark, or even a single twig, at least to genus and usually to species. I can't be as positive about the second tree. Looks like another shagbark, though the bark isn't flaking as much. The green twigs coming off the lower trunk seem a bit different, I usually see gray/brown twigs. A close up of the bud at the twig ends would confirm ID.
Firemaker1111
ArboristSite Lurker
I've split paulownia that looked a lot like that.
Paulownia is real light when dry.
When I had my Forestry class final exam, the prof took us out into the woods in December and had us ID trees that he had marked and numbered. Most were so tall that you couldn't see the buds on the branches. You CAN ID trees from the bark, how the branches grow, what terrain they grow in and looking around in the forest floor for any mast/leaves that might have fallen. Our final was in knee deep snow, so looking on the forest floor was impossible. I remember winging my clipboard up into the branches hoping to knock off a small dead one so I could look at the bud scars or buds themselves.
Yeah, but only from experience, not from reading a book or looking at pictures. I can spot a lot of trees by genus & species until you put it on a picture. Then the number of trees I can get correct goes way down.
Just look at all the luck we are having with a possible shagbark hickory. That is one of the easiest to ID from the bark, yet here we are, many pages later, unresolved.
Just look at all the luck we are having with a possible shagbark hickory. That is one of the easiest to ID from the bark, yet here we are, many pages later, unresolved.
It's not Shagbark, not even close.
Similar threads
