Further thoughts on tree collections: bark

Last weekend it was only raining intermittently for a change, so it seemed the ideal opportunity for a local walk. We followed a valley, walking parallel to a road, a railway and a tributary of the Avon. It turned out to be a strange mix - partly very rural ( ancient very muddy sunken lanes, fields of sheep and lambs) and partly curiously industrial (an urbexer's dream, sadly I was somewhat of a coward without a torch). To get to the point, one of the trees by the stream drew huge attention to itself through its unusual and attractive bark, which was rather like this:

White poplar (Populus alba), CC image by MPF.

It made me reflect that bark would be a very good thing to illustrate in your notebook. It also could help you in your identification in cases of Complexity. At the time (in my ignorance) I thought this tree with its diamondy bark was clearly White poplar (Populus alba), but now I read that this species hybridises with Aspen (Populus tremula), to give 'Grey poplar' (Populus x canescens). So without records of proper observation in the field, I'm not really the wiser. I do know that Grey poplar likes river valleys and has lovely red catkins (as I remember this tree did) - so maybe the clues add up to that species instead.

You've possibly heard of Gustav Klimt (who painted 'The Kiss') - in addition to depicting scantily clad women he also seems to have been quite fond of trees. This is his 'Birkenwald' (Birch wood):

Painted 1903. Public Domain image

I think he captures the stripey paperiness of the birches very well (also I like the dead leaves). Ok so you don't have to take up oil painting, but a quick sketch of the bark in your notebook (highlighting its distinctive features and maybe even with a touch of colour) would go down very well in the eye of the person marking it. And beyond this pragmatic approach, it would no doubt broaden your learning and help you spot different species with which to up your specimen count.