For honesty though, nothing beats a website that isn't trying to make money off you buying their products.

I think my favorite is the UConn Plant Database. Its simple enough to work with dial up and has a wide variety of trees listed.

Out of all the "catalog" sites I like the Arbor Day Foundation's. It only does fair on "the Sweetgum spiny ball test" of telling you about the liabilities of planting any tree. It is easy to read for beginners and has them neat historical tidbits.

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

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.

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

Good "3rd resource" for me.

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

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.

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

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.

Resin

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.

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.

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.

Suppose the web has made it a smaller world.

If it's still the way it was before.

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

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

http://forestry.about.com/

I also like many of the sites listed previously.

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