I've found the UConn site full of errors; particularly bad for European species which they (perhaps predictably) don't have overly much experience of.

These are very good, though they do of course only deal with conifers:
http://www.pinetum.org
http://www.conifers.org
http://www.cupressus.net

Resin

I use that hort.uconn site a lot. I use the USDA silvics manual a lot. I use the NC State univ site a lot. Sometimes I use the Virginia Tech dendrology site if I can remember their URL. The sites I use the most have the hardest URLS to remember.

On a recent post MdVaden had a link to his web page. The 'advice' section has a lot of useful information and is probably worth a lot of folks' checking out. It's probably one of the best pages that I have seen.. but I am fairly new to the internet.

I'm not sure I have a favorite site, but here are a few that can come in handy:

NC State Univ. Plant Fact Sheets: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/factsheets/

University of Florida Tree Fact Sheets: http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/trees/

University of Florida Shrub Fact Sheets: http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/shrubs/

Dave's PlantFiles (for info about plants): (Gadenweb's competition, so web address blocked here)

PlantScout (for locating plant suppliers): (Gadenweb's competition, so web address blocked here)

Garden Watchdog (to check out plant suppliers): (Gadenweb's competition, so web address blocked here)

Trees Are Good (good general tree info): http://www.treesaregood.com/

eFloras (one of the most complete plant keys): http://www.efloras.org/

As Resin said about a site above, I find lots of errors in almost every single site I use. That's why it's always good to get multiple references/opinions.

I had to try it. Sure enough they do block their competition.
Does that also mean I can't mention ABC or CBS? OR Charter Communications such as http://cbs.com or http://charter.net
I guess not.

see below

Here is a link that might be useful: click here

These are my top two...especially U of Florida. They'll typically have notes on a regional basis

http://hort.ifas.ufl.edu/trees/
http://www.northscaping.com/Tools/LPS-Engine.asp?10000000

Sorry, forgot about this one...

Good "3rd resource" for me.

http://www.mobot.org/gardeninghelp/plantfinder/Alpha.asp

My, that's quite a bit of good winter reading I have to do!

Interesting talk about the errors. When two sites list different information I wonder which is right. Guess going with the majority is probably right.

whaas, I should use the mobot site more! Place is only 20ish miles from my house so I always forget to check their website.

lol@gardenweb blocking other hort message boards.

Here is a link that might be useful: attempted link to other hort board

Toronado,

The links are only blocked for Dave's Garden (so far as I know) and only in the message box (not the link box).

I guess nobody's told whaas about the sweeping inaccuracies with that UFL site.

When you try to post a link to that other site, it gives you this error message

Spam Alert:

In order to fight spam, we need your cooperation!

Unfortunately, we have been the victims of spam attacks (the posting of ads) promoting this site or business (avesDay ardenGay) and they are now blocked completely to prevent a recurrence.

Please do not mention them in our forums or elsewhere at this site.

Any attempt at circumventing this block by using our site to refer others to this business will be interpreted as an attempt to further spam our site and you will be permanently banned from using our services.GardenWeb

We appreciate your cooperation in keeping messages ad-free!

It really does say "we appreciate your cooperation in keeping messsages ad-free!".
What am I missing cuz there's ads pasted on every square inch of this site.

When someone posts a link on their site, they're the victims. Does that mean we are victims of a spam attack when we get hit with megabyte of browser-crashing scripts, animated banners and embedded flash movies per pageview?

According to this we aren't even supposed to mention that other site or we can get "banned" from using their services. You all should be careful not to even mention the other site.

I don't know about "sweeping inaccuracies", but even with the occasional slip, I have to agree with Whaas, that I generally like the UFL site. The information is presented well, they do have quite a few reviews, and I find it as accurate as anywhere else I can think of right now (which is not saying that they have some high degree of accuracy, just generally a good place to start).

LOL, Iforgotitsonevermind, you're right about Gardenweb being the biggest SPAMer here. They really don't seem to consider the (non-Firefox) Gardenweb user when setting up their ad scheme. I use Firefox with Adblock, so the only time I even think about any of their ads is when a conversations makes me remember back to the times I used to have to deal with them. I haven't seen an ad on Gardenweb in a very looooong time.

Agree with Iforgotitsonevermind, that UFL site is awful - if nothing else, their zone suitability maps are a complete joke as they don't pay any heed at all to anything other than winter temperatures, when it is more often summer temperatures and rainfall that determine what you can grow.

Resin

Hardiness zones are the usual thing considered, heat zones being relatively new. That's why you have an 8/9 after pineresin, that is the prevalent system and not a peculiarity of the University of Florida Tree Fact Sheets - which if the one on Abies firma is representative are taken from ones produced by Gilman and Watson for USDA.

Otherwise, if you are saying a site has errors based on your idea that each tree has a single correct common name that must be used everywhere, then of course you will have no trouble finding an abundance of such errors at every turn.

Not that numerous print and internet productions don't have lots of other "errors of omission and commission". One set of plant encyclopedias that came out awhile back had 800 mistakes, according to an informed reader who I got the impression came up with these after a single pass.

I'm sure one can make an intelligent inference by utilizing multiple sources. You'll never find 1 resource that is complete and 100% accurate...especially if its not taylored to your locale.

UFL comments are all based on preference...if not chose three trees and post the sweeping inaccuracies...we should really inform the University if the information is flat out false.

Heat zone?...what the heck is a heat zone? Yes, notice the 5a in front my home city, lol.

LOL, you have listed some great sites. My first thought in reading the subject posting was an educational site intended for younger people. I spend alot of time with the under 10 crowd :)

Here is a link that might be useful: Leaf miner game

2100 off the bat...not too good with the timing, didn't know what was going on at first, lol.

Some comments about the UFL sites.

First, I would agree the information is presented well in a clean-looking, easy-to-read format and I find the illustrations of the trees helpful.

The problems that I've had with it though is they would appear to have more than one publication for the same species posted in different locations on the web that often contain contradictory information.

Their labeling of invasive potential is another area that I have a problem with. Almost every noxious weed they have a fact sheet for, they say has "little, if any" potential.

Furthermore, I have long wondered why and or how they are able to compile this information when a great deal of the species they've written about won't even grow in Florida. Never the less, they will describe availability of certain trees or cultivars but it's unclear as to who that is relevant to.

There are some discrepancies that I often find with size, growth rates, shapes and fruiting but do enjoy reading that site just for entertainment value and because the illustrations of a "middle aged __________ " can't be beat.

If they're all originally from Gilman and Watson and prepared in another part of the eastern US, then that could be why some pages are not appropriate to Florida. Unfortunately, various other Extension web pages for other states are often linked to or taken from elsewhere instead of derived from local research. Ideally all the states would have teams testing regional performances and making recommendations based on their own findings.

Interesting. I go to the Missouri Botanical Garden to "see what xxx tree looks like when it grows in my city" but will read information from the University of Connecticut like its the bible for trees EVERYWHERE.

Suppose the web has made it a smaller world.

I've never liked the UConn site, too many "errors of omission and commission" - and the photos are not identified.

If it's still the way it was before.

I'll put in a second vote for disliking the UConn site.

As I use multiple sources its consistently the source that is "much differnt" than the others.

Personally I like the USDA site the best since it shows in the 'native range' map in addition to providing the other info.

Even though the info isn't extensive, I have also always liked Floridata.

I enjoy reading Steve Nix's forestry blog at about.com

http://forestry.about.com/

I also like many of the sites listed previously.

Here is a link that might be useful: Forestry at

http://www.duke.edu/~cwcook/index.html
Great pics. All pics virtually Taken in NC/VA

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/hort/consumer/

http://www.hort.uconn.edu/plants/index.html

I use lots of sites, but the Oregon State University website is the one I go to most often.

Here is a link that might be useful: Oregon State University Landscape Plants