Was that for me?
It says
palmately compound with three (rarely five) leaflets, and in another place makes no mention of such a possibility.
The mystery plant is clearly NOT palmately compound, and "rarely" does not meant always.
AND
This is why wikipedia is bad, BAD!
Look at the source cited for the supposed five leaflet statement:
Keeler, Harriet L. (1900). Our Native Trees and How to Identify Them. New York: Charles Scriber's Sons. pp. 32–35
And this is the ACTUAL source:
https://archive.org/stream/cu3...
Firstly, the publisher is misspelled in the citation - (
Scribner, not Scriber)
Secondly, there is NO MENTION of 5 leaflets in the ascribed source. As often is the case with wikipedia, supposed "facts" are pulled out of thin air.
Always use credible sources, and that is NOT wikipedia!
