Rhus glabra vs Rhus typhina
These two are not on this page because a keyword tool suggested them. They are here because our own identification model genuinely mistook one for the other, on real photographs, 9 times. We publish the rate, and then we tell you what actually separates them.
Side by sidefigs. a and b
Rhus glabra
Rhus typhina
How often our model gets it wrong measured, not estimated
| When the plant was | The model said | How often |
|---|---|---|
| Rhus glabra | Rhus typhina | 6 of 20 (30%) |
| Rhus typhina | Rhus glabra | 3 of 20 (15%) |
The confusion is asymmetric, which is common and usually informative: it means one of these has a character the other lacks, rather than the two simply looking alike.
Measured on 38,949 openly licensed, research-grade photographs. Full method and dataset.
What actually separates themon the record
| Family | Both Anacardiaceae. The family does not separate them. |
|---|---|
| Genus | Both Rhus. Congeners, which is why this is hard. |
| Flowering | Peaks in June versus June. Timing does not separate them. (n = 1,358 and 1,042.) |
What we do not have yet: the diagnostic morphological character that a botanist would key on, from a source we can cite. We are not going to invent one. Until we have it, this page tells you the two are genuinely confusable, how often, and what the taxonomy and the flowering data do and do not settle.