Which do you find easier to identify - trees or birds?
By John Welford
@indexer (4852)
Leicester, England
November 9, 2015 3:58am CST
When I was in the Scouts (a year or two back!) there were tests assigned for gaining your "second class" and "first class" badges. For second class you had to be able to identify six common trees; for first class the test was 12 common trees, and there was another test for identifying six common birds.
The assumption, therefore, was that it was easier to recognise varieties of tree than it was species of bird. I have always wondered about this, because the bird test was - for me - a darned sight easier than the tree test!
How well would you have fared - or did you fare during your time in the Scouts or Guides?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@owlwings (43897)
• Cambridge, England
9 Nov 15
I was never in the Scouts but my father knew his plants, trees and birds well. We had records of bird song by Ludvig Koch and plenty of identification books to hand.
I always found trees rather easier to identify than birds. Trees, after all, are large and stand still. You can get up close to them (even climb them) and take bits of them home to get a more positive identification.
Birds are often far away or hidden in the bushes, you can't always tell what colour their legs are (if it's a chiff-chaff or a willow warbler) or whether it's a dark brown or a black patch on their head ... and they don't always sing conveniently for you!
Your picture, by the way, was a pretty easy one. It's a rather chilly looking song thrush sitting on an ash tree in the spring - possibly early to mid April?
1 person likes this
@concept001 (436)
• India
9 Nov 15
I think its always better at identifying a bird than trees. Sometimes its rather easy to recognize different species of birds than trees. But for me I have never been in Scout and Guides or have ever completed anu such assignment. But I like nature.
